THE ABUSE OF POLICE AUTHORITY - Police Foundation

THE ABUSE OF POLICE AUTHORITY

A National Study of Police Officers’ Attitudes

2

The Abuse of Police Authority

This edition of The Abuse of Police Authority: A National Study of Police Officers Attitudes has been

formatted for the Web in PDF format; the pagination differs from the printed version.

Copyright restrictions apply.

3

Police Foundation

THE ABUSE OF POLICE AUTHORITY

A National Study of Police Officers’ Attitudes

David Weisburd

Rosann Greenspan

Edwin E. Hamilton

Kellie A. Bryant

Hubert Williams

4


The Police Foundation is a private, independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting

innovation and improvement in policing. Established in 1970, the foundation has conducted semi-

nal research in police behavior, policy, and procedure, and works to transfer to local agencies the

best new information about practices for dealing effectively with a range of important police

operational and administrative concerns. Motivating all of the foundation’s efforts is the goal of

efficient, humane policing that operates within the framework of democratic principles and the

highest ideals of the nation. The Police Foundation’s research findings are published as an infor-

mation service.

The research findings in this publication were supported by Grant Number 97–CK–WX–0047,

awarded on behalf of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice. Findings,

recommendations, and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.

©2001 by the Police Foundation. All rights, including translation into other languages, reserved

under the Universal Copyright Convention, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and

Artistic Works, and the International and Pan American Copyright Conventions. Permission to

quote is readily granted.

ISBN 1–884614–17–5

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2001–130311

Police Foundation1201 Connecticut Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036-2636(202) 833–1460E-Mail: [email protected]

5

Police Foundation

Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................... 9

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................... 11

I Introduction ............................................................................................................. 12

II Methodology ............................................................................................................ 15

III Characteristics of the Sample .................................................................................. 19

IV Main Survey Results ................................................................................................. 23

Abuse of Authority and the Use of Force 23

Code of Silence 25

Social Factors 29

Departmental Response 31

Controlling Abuse 32

Community-Oriented Policing 35

Subgroup Analysis 39

Race 39Rank: Supervisors and Nonsupervisors 42Region 46Agency Size 48Gender 50

V Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 52

Endnotes ........................................................................................................................... 56

References ........................................................................................................................ 62

Authors ...................................................................................................................... 66

6


Illustrations

Tables3.1 Officers’ Current Rank ...................................................................................... 20

3.2 Education Level of Officers .............................................................................. 21

3.3 Racial Background of Officers .......................................................................... 22

3.4 Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic Officers ................................................................. 22

4.1 Officers’ Attitudes Toward Limitations on Useof Force .............................................................................................................. 24

4.2 Officers’ Perceptions of Use of Force Behaviorin Their Department ......................................................................................... 25

4.3 Code of Silence: Attitudes ................................................................................. 27

4.4 Code of Silence: Perceptions of Behavior ....................................................... 27

4.5 Scenario of an Unruly Suspect ......................................................................... 28

4.6 Perceptions of the Effects of Extra-Legal Factorson Police Behavior ........................................................................................... 29

4.7 Police Perceptions of the Public’s AttitudeToward the Police ............................................................................................. 30

4.8 Perceptions of Media and Citizens’ ConcernsToward Police Abuse ....................................................................................... 31

4.9 Departmental Responses to Abuse of Authority ............................................. 32

4.10 The Role of Supervision in Controlling Abuse ................................................ 33

4.11 Officers’ Perceptions of the Effects of Trainingon Abuse of Authority ...................................................................................... 34

4.12 The Community-Police Partnership ................................................................. 35

4.13 Perceptions of the Effects of Community Policingon Abuse of Authority ...................................................................................... 36

By Race

4.14 Police officers often treat whites better than they doAfrican Americans and other minorities .......................................................... 40

4.15 Police officers are more likely to use physical forceagainst African Americans and other minorities thanagainst whites in similar situations. .................................................................. 41

7

Police Foundation

4.16 Police officers are more likely to use physical forceagainst poor people than against middle-class peoplein similar situations ........................................................................................... 41

4.17 Community-oriented policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the number of incidentsof excessive force .............................................................................................. 41

4.18 Community-oriented policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the seriousness of excessiveforce incidents. .................................................................................................. 42

4.19 Citizen review boards are effective means for preventingpolice misconduct. ............................................................................................ 43

By Rank: Supervisors and Nonsupervisors

4.20 Good first-line supervisors can help prevent policeofficers from abusing their authority. .............................................................. 43

4.21 If a police chief takes a strong position against abusesof authority, he or she can make a big difference inpreventing officers from abusing their authority. ............................................ 43

4.22 Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developingmore effective methods of supervision. .......................................................... 44

4.23 Whistle blowing is not worth it. ....................................................................... 45

4.24 The code of silence is an essential part of the mutual trustnecessary to good policing. ............................................................................. 45

4.25 It is sometimes acceptable to use more force thanis legally allowable to control someone who physicallyassaults an officer. ............................................................................................. 45

4.26 Police department rules about the use of force shouldnot be any stricter than required by law. ........................................................ 46

4.27 Community-oriented policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the number of excessive force incidents. ..................... 47

4.28 Community-oriented policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the seriousness of excessiveforce incidents. .................................................................................................. 47

8


By Region

4.29 Frequent friendly contact with local residents and merchantsincreases the likelihood that police officers will acceptfree lunches, discounts, or gifts of appreciation foreffective service. ................................................................................................ 47

4.30 It is sometimes acceptable to use more force than islegally allowable to control someone who physically assaultsan officer. ........................................................................................................... 48

4.31 Police officers always report serious criminal violationsinvolving abuse of authority by fellow officers. .............................................. 49

By Agency Size

4.32 If a police chief takes a strong position against abusesof authority, he or she can make a big difference inpreventing officers from abusing their authority. ............................................ 49

4.33 Good first-line supervisors can help prevent officersfrom abusing their authority. ............................................................................. 49

4.34 Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developingmore effective methods of supervision. ......................................................... 50

4.35 Police administrators concentrate on what police officersdo wrong rather than what police officers do right. ...................................... 51

Figures3.1 Officers’ Gender ................................................................................................ 22

3.2 Officers’ Satisfaction With Career ..................................................................... 22

9

Police Foundation

ForewordWhen the police fail to meet our expectations, we react with dismay, anger, andadditional demands. Police corruption and abuse of authority have persistedsince the beginning of policing, and were exacerbated late in the twentieth cen-tury by America’s drug epidemic. Every year, incidents of police abuse of author-ity cost local communities tens of millions of dollars in legal damages. Tax dollarsare wasted. Careers are destroyed. The public trust is compromised.

Virtually every police department has policies prescribing officer conduct andregulating use of force. No police department or police chief should knowinglycondone conduct that runs counter to either department policy or constitutionalstandards. While there is accountability for acts of corruption and other forms ofwrongdoing in most police departments, there is little or no accountability forthose who tolerate such an environment. How, for example, were a few officersable to brutalize Abner Louima within sound if not sight of first-line supervisorsand other department officials in New York’s 70

th Precinct?

Even good people, placed in the wrong situation, will do the wrong thing. Badsupervision, intense peer pressure, and an organizational culture that sends un-clear signals can cause honorable men and women to behave in dishonorableways. The key moral problem for police departments is the same as it is forcorporations, universities, labor unions, and government agencies: how can youcreate a culture that will induce members to strike the right balance betweenachieving an organizational goal and observing fundamental principles of de-cency and fairness?

Values in police agencies come not just from documents that describe them butalso from traditional police culture. Too often, there is a disconnect betweenpolicies and practices, a failure of police management to monitor behavior andto respond appropriately. If police leadership does not assume an aggressive rolein ensuring that the police culture is one of integrity and accountability, officerswill continue to cultivate their own culture in their own way.

We expect our police “…to have the wisdom of Solomon, the courage of David, the patience ofJob and the leadership of Moses, the kindness of the Good Samaritan, the strategy of

Alexander, the faith of Daniel, the diplomacy of Lincoln, the tolerance of the Carpenter ofNazareth, and, finally, an intimate knowledge of every branch of the natural, biological,

and social sciences. If he had all these, he might be a good policeman.”

—August Vollmer, 1936

10


As this study reaffirms, commitment by the chief and command staff to upholddemocratic values and eradicate discriminatory practices is key. Police adminis-trators should proactively institute and enforce strong policies governingconduct, as well as systems to collect and analyze data relative to police-citizencontacts such as complaints, use of force incidents, and traffic stops. Suchefforts would inform policy, guide recruitment and training, and build account-ability necessary to restore and maintain public trust in the police. It is the lack ofinternal, systemic controls, and not “a few rotten apples,” that perpetuates prob-lems of misconduct and abuse by police. Most of America’s police officers arehonest, dedicated, hard-working public servants, and it is they, as well as thepublic they serve, who are victims of the “bad” cop.

Because of the nature of their responsibilities, the police have the power tointervene and become involved at very basic levels within the lives of Americancitizens. The nature of the police response—the manner in which officers inter-act with citizens and the methods by which they enforce the law—have criticalimplications for our democracy and the quality of life of our citizens. As JeromeSkolnick writes in his thoughtful essay, On Democratic Policing, “Order achievedthrough democratic policing is concerned not only with the ends of crimecontrol, but also with the means used to achieve those ends.”

Are police abuses inevitable in our efforts to control crime? What are policeofficers’ views on the code of silence, whistle blowing, and the ways in whichrace or class influence police behavior? What are effective means of preventingabuse of authority by police? This report provides a nationwide portrait of whatAmerica’s police officers think about these and other important questions ofabuse of police authority.

Hubert WilliamsPresident

Police Foundation

11

Police Foundation

AcknowledgmentsAs in any large-scale project, we owe a debt of gratitude to many people whohelped in developing our work. At the outset, we received much advice, encour-agement, and support, which continued throughout the project, from Dr. DavidHayeslip (now at Abt Associates) and Joseph Kuhns from the Office of Commu-nity Oriented Policing Services.

We would like to thank Mathematica Policy Research Inc. for setting and meetingthe highest standards in survey research, especially project director Rhoda Cohen,senior statistician John Hall, telephone supervisor Deborah Reese, survey associ-ate Phyllis Schulman, and all the telephone interviewers. We also thank EdwardMaguire of George Mason University for sharing his police agency database and forassisting in developing the sampling frame, and we thank Colleen Cosgrove and BillMatthews for assisting in selecting police departments for our focus groups.

A number of policing scholars contributed greatly at various stages of the project,from initial design of the sample frame, through development of the surveyinstrument, and by participation in our focus group of police scholars and execu-tives. Our gratitude goes to Carl Klockars, Peter Manning, Ramiro Martinez, StephenMastrofski, Albert Reiss, Jerome Skolnick, Alfred Slocum, and Robert Worden.

We appreciate as well the contributions of Commissioner Thomas Frazier, ChiefJerry Oliver, Chief Jerry Sanders, and Director Robert Pugh in our focus group ofscholars and executives.

We learned a tremendous amount from the generous participation of the un-named officers who took part in our focus groups of rank-and-file officers andsupervisors. We thank the officers who participated in the pretest, and especiallythe 925 officers from across the country who volunteered their cooperation incompleting the survey interview. Finally, our thanks go to Fred Wilson, ChrisTutko, Rachel Dadusc, and Michael Clifton, formerly of the Police Foundation,and Kenneth Brunk of the Police Foundation, and especially to Mary Malina,Communications Director of the Police Foundation, who supervised theproduction of this report.

12


I

INTRODUCTION

American society has long entrusted toits police the authority to use force inthe pursuit of justice, law, and order.This authority is often glorified inbooks, television, and movies, wherethe police are seen as constantlyresponding to violent felons withequally violent reactions. But the real-ity of police use of force is much lessdramatic and the boundaries of legiti-mate police use of force are much moreconstrained than defined in popularculture. The police indeed havediscretion to use violence when it isrequired. However, the potential abuseand actual abuse of such authorityremain both a central problem for po-lice agencies and a central public policyconcern.

Extreme examples of police abuseoften spark major public debate.Videotapes of Rodney King beingbeaten by Los Angeles police offic-ers, as well as reports of the tortureof Abner Louima by New York Citypolice, capture public attention andraise troubling questions about po-lice abuse of force in a democraticsociety. Are such events isolated ab-errations in American policing, or arethey extreme examples of a moregeneral problem that plagues Ameri-can police departments? Does the factthat such events often involve minori-ties suggest important inequities oflaw enforcement against particular ra-cial, class, or ethnic groups? Whatmeasures can be taken to constrainpolice abuse, and which are likely to

…[P]otential

abuse and

actual abuse

of [police]

authority

remain both

a central

problem

for police

agencies and

a central

public policy

concern.

13

Police Foundation

be most effective? Such questions havebeen raised and debated in the media,by our politicians, and by police schol-ars and administrators. However, thevoices of rank-and-file police officersand supervisors have not been heard.

This silence is particularly important,given the vast changes in organization,tactics, and philosophy that haveoccurred in American policing over thepast three decades. At the forefront ofthose changes has been the transitionfrom the use of traditional military andprofessional models of policing to thecreation of innovative models ofcommunity policing. While the policehad earlier defined professionalizationas limiting the role of the communityin American policing, today police seekto work closely with the public indefining and responding to problemsof crime and disorder. In turn, the mili-tary model of police supervision thatgave little autonomy or authority tostreet-level officers has begun to bereplaced by more flexible modes ofsupervision that allow rank-and-fileofficers the freedom to develop con-tacts with the public and to defineinnovative problem-solving strategies.The police and the community are seenas partners in emerging models of com-munity policing. Rank-and-file police—as those closest to the public—have,in turn, become central actors in themovement toward community-orientedpolicing. The views of rank-and-filepolice have special significance in thisage of community policing, which has

sought to tighten the bonds betweenpolice and community and to empowerboth groups to act effectively againstcommunity problems.

With the support of the Office of Com-munity Oriented Policing Services ofthe U.S. Department of Justice, thePolice Foundation undertook toconduct a representative nationalsurvey that would uncover the attitudesof American police about sensitivequestions of police abuse of authority.How do contemporary police viewabuses of police authority? Do policesee them as an inevitable by-productof increased efforts to control crime anddisorder? What forms do they take?How common do police believe themto be? What strategies and tactics dopolice view as most effective inpreventing police abuses of authority?Given the importance of the movementtoward community-oriented policing,we sought to define whether commu-nity-oriented policing is seen to encour-age or constrain the boundaries ofacceptable use of police authority. Hascommunity policing enhanced themovement toward police respect forthe rights of citizens, or has it fosterednew police skepticism about the ruleof law in a democratic society?

The following is our report on a tele-phone survey of a representativesample of more than 900 police offic-ers who were drawn from an estimatedpopulation of 350,000 American mu-nicipal and county police.

1 Ours is the

first national study of this type and,

…[V]iews of

rank-and-file

police have

special

significance

in this age

of community

policing, which

has sought to

tighten the

bonds between

police and

community

and to

empower

both groups to

act effectively

against

community

problems.

14


therefore, has particular significance forunderstanding the attitudes of Ameri-can police toward abuse of authorityin the age of community policing. Thereport examines the questions raisedabove using the survey responses ofpolice officers, as well as the insightsgained from focus groups conductedearlier in the study (see Appendices B,C, and D). The major findings of thestudy are as follows:

• American police believe that extremecases of police abuse of authorityoccur infrequently. However, a sub-stantial minority of officers believethat it is sometimes necessary to usemore force than is legally allowable.

• Despite strong support for normsrecognizing the boundaries ofpolice authority, officers revealedthat it is not unusual for police toignore improper conduct by theirfellow officers.

• American police believe that train-ing and education programs areeffective means of preventing police

from abusing authority. They alsoargue that their own departmenttakes a “tough stand” on the issueof police abuse. Finally, they arguethat a department’s chief and first-line supervisors can play an impor-tant role in preventing abuse ofauthority.

• Police officers believe that the pub-lic and the media are too concernedwith police abuses of authority.

• American police officers supportcore principles of community polic-ing; they generally believe thatcommunity policing reduces or hasno impact on the potential forpolice abuse.

• A majority of African-Americanpolice officers believe that policetreat whites better than AfricanAmericans and other minorities, andthat police officers are more likelyto use physical force against minori-ties or the poor. Few white policeofficers, however, share these views.

…[T]he first

national study

of this

type …has

particular

significance

for under-

standing the

attitudes

of American

police toward

abuse of

authority in

the age of

community

policing.

15

Police Foundation

II

METHODOLOGY

Our findings are based on a telephonesurvey that was conducted byMathematica Policy Research Inc. ofPrinceton, New Jersey, under the di-rection of the Police Foundation. Thesurvey instrument was developed bythe Police Foundation’s staff after con-sulting a wide range of earlier studiesand after conducting a series of focusgroups composed of police scholars,police managers, and rank-and-filepolice.

2 The survey itself took an av-

erage of 25 minutes to complete andwas carried out with careful concernfor protecting the anonymity, privacy,and confidentiality of participants.

3

As the sample design was developed,background research revealed that al-though a number of studies have ran-domly sampled police departments,

only one previous national survey—a1985 study of police officers’ attitudestoward issues related to rape—used arandomly selected sample of policeofficers (LeDoux and Hazelwood,1985). In selecting our sample, we hada basic requirement to obtain a repre-sentative sample of police officers na-tionwide.

4 We designed a two-step pro-

cess. First, we sought the most accuratelisting of police agencies throughout thecountry. Second, after selecting a sampleof participating agencies, we began ourtask of procuring lists of officers fromthose agencies.

A recent study by Maguire, Snipes,Uchida, and Townsend (1998) concludedthat the sources generally relied uponfor national-level information aboutpolice agencies are inadequate. Maguire

…[W]e had

a basic

requirement

to obtain a

representative

sample of

police officers

nationwide.

16


et al. explained the limitations of anddiscrepancies between the FBI UniformCrime Reports and the 1992 Census ofLaw Enforcement Agencies that had beencompiled by the Bureau of Justice Statis-tics with the Census Bureau, as compre-hensive lists of all police agencies in theUnited States. Their study developed amore reliable list of police agencies bycombining the information contained inthe Uniform Crime Reports, the 1992Census of Law Enforcement Agencies,and a third list of police departments pro-vided by the Office of Community Ori-ented Policing Services. This newlycreated list, with further corrections byMaguire, served as the universe ofpolice departments for the PoliceFoundation study.

The Police Foundation, in consultationwith several policing experts and stat-isticians, identified criteria for inclusionin the sampling frame. The criteriaestablished were as follows:

• The police department has primaryresponsibility for providing policeservices to a residential population(thus eliminating special policeforces).

• The department has a minimum of10 full-time sworn officers.

• The department is either a munici-pal or county police agency (statepolice and sheriff departments, withtheir wide range of responsibilitiesthat may or may not include polic-ing residential populations, wereexcluded from the sampling frame).

The sampling frame, as thus defined,consisted of 5,042 police departmentsthat employ between 91.6 percent and94.1 percent of all full-time swornofficers who serve in local police agen-cies in the United States. Applying theregional classification system used inthe FBI Uniform Crime Reports (FBI,1994), we see that the officers repre-sented 1,377 departments from theNortheast, 1,547 from the South, 1,383from the North Central, and 735 fromthe West.

5 Maguire (1997) estimates

the number of officers in these 5,042departments at about 350,000.

We followed a method of multistage,or clustered, sampling, whereby thesampling frame was divided into sam-pling units that were based on depart-ment size.

6 Those units were then dis-

tributed into three strata, or groups, bysize of department and organized bygeographic region. One stratum (the“certainty” stratum) consisted of thenine largest departments. The secondstratum contained 84 randomly selecteddepartments with 25 or more full-timesworn officers (the “midsize” stratum).The third group included 28 randomlyselected departments with at least 10,but no more than 24, full-time swornofficers (the “small” stratum).

To draw the random samples of offic-ers of all ranks from each of the 121departments, and then to contact theofficers selected to be interviewed, thePolice Foundation contacted the 121selected departments and requested thefollowing information:

The sampling

frame…

consisted of

5,042 police

departments

that employ

between

91.6 percent

and

94.1 percent

of all full-time

sworn offic-

ers who serve

in local police

agencies in

the United

States.

17

Police Foundation

• A roster with the names and ranksof all full-time sworn personnel,

• A badge or employee identificationnumber for each officer,

• A phone number at the departmentwhere each officer could be con-tacted,

• An address at the department whereeach officer could be contacted, and,

• If possible, the shift each officer isassigned to.

As each department’s list became avail-able in the form necessary, the randomsamples were drawn, advance letterswere sent to the selected officers, andthe process of phoning and conduct-ing the surveys was carried out.

Of the 121 departments contacted, 113ultimately agreed to participate, for anoverall departmental participation rateof 93.4 percent. The eight departmentsthat declined were from all three strata.Thus, we lost (a) one department (fromthe nine) in the certainty stratum, for aparticipation rate of 89 percent; (b) sixfrom the 84 in the midsize stratum, fora participation rate of 93 percent; and(c) one from the 28 in the small stra-tum, for a participation rate of 96.5percent. The participating departmentscooperated by submitting rosters of allfull-time sworn personnel, with rank,contact address, and telephone num-bers.

7 From those lists, 1,112 officers

were randomly selected. As initialcontacts were made, it was determinedthat 60 officers were ineligible to

participate for a number of reasons (i.e.,were not full-time sworn officers, wereon suspension, were on long-term dis-ability, etc.). They were, therefore,removed from the sample. Their elimi-nation left a final sample size of 1,060.

Response rates in social science re-search are often used as the benchmarkfor evaluating the representativeness ofthe sample and for determining thedegree to which one can generalizefrom the survey results to the surveypopulation. A generally accepted ruleof thumb is that response rates of 70percent or above are viewed as “verygood” (see Babbie, 1990; Babbie, 1992;Maxfield and Babbie, 1995). Of the1,060 eligible officers in the sample,925 completed the survey, for acompletion rate of 87.3 percent. Thisrate is one of the highest achieved insurveys of police, whether on the na-tional or state level (see, for example,LeDoux and Hazelwood, 1985; Pateand Fridell, 1993; Martin and Bensinger,1994; McConkey, Huon, and Frank,1996; and Amendola, Hockman, andScharf, 1996). Even when we combinethe departmental participation rate of93.4 percent with the officer comple-tion rate of 87.3 percent, the combinedoverall response rate of 81.5 percent isstill well above the accepted standard.

In survey research, it is traditional toreport the level of statistical confidence,sometimes referred to as sampling error,that can be applied to the estimatesreported. For our study, that level of con-fidence was very high for percentages

Of the

1,060 eligible

officers,…

925 completed

the survey….

This rate [87%]

is one of the

highest…

in surveys

of police,

whether on

the national

or state level.…

18


relating to the full sample. The 95 per-cent confidence intervals for responsesin the survey were generally between2 and 4 percent.

8 This figure suggests

that we can be very confident that thepopulation characteristics associated withthe survey responses were generallywithin plus or minus 2 to 4 percent ofthose reported. If we were hypotheti-cally to observe repeated samples likethat drawn in our study and to calculatea confidence interval for each, then onlyabout 5 in 100 would fail to includethe true population percentage (seeWeisburd, 1998). This statistic is some-times defined as the margin of error orthe sampling error of a study. Confidenceintervals for subsamples in the study,such as women or minorities, were larger.In those cases, we generally comparesubgroups and report significance lev-els. It should be noted that the standarderrors used for calculations of confidence

intervals and significance statistics wereadjusted according to the samplingprocedures we used.

9

Because of the stratified and clusteredsampling procedures used in the study,it is necessary to include a correctionwhen reporting survey responses. Thiscorrection is based on weighting eachdepartment and police officer accord-ing to the proportion of the actualpopulation of American police thateach represents.

10 In practice, weight-

ing in the survey does not greatly alterthe majority of estimates that wereport. Nonetheless, the weightedestimates provide a more accuratepicture of the true population ofresponses than that provided by theraw estimates. We report only weightedpercentages in the discussion andtables below.

19

Police Foundation

III

CHARACTERISTICSOF THE SAMPLE

The survey represents a broad popula-tion of officers and reflects the diversecomposition of American police. Forexample, 56 percent of the officers sur-veyed defined themselves as “patrolofficers.” Another 16 percent were de-tectives, criminal investigators, andcorporals. Sergeants constituted about15 percent of the sample, and another13 percent held the rank of lieutenantor above (see Table 3.1).

11 About 3 of

10 officers in the sample noted that theyserved as “supervisors.” While morethan 2 of 10 officers were under30 years old, more than 8 percent wereover 50 years old. Officers ranged inage from 22 to 66 years old. Regardingmarital status, almost three of four (74percent) were either married or livingwith someone as if married.

The length of service of the sworn po-lice officers in the sample ranged fromless than 1 year to 35 years, with about25 percent at 5 years or less. One in fiveofficers had served from 6 to 10 years,almost one in five had served from 11 to15 years, and more than one-third hadserved 16 years or more. Most officershad patrol responsibilities (60 percent).Some 30 percent were involved in otherfield operations such as gang, juvenile,robbery, and homicide, including 7 per-cent who identified themselves as as-signed to community policing. More than10 percent did not have field assign-ments, but served in administration, com-munications, technical support, and otherjobs. This proportion is similar to thatreported in the 1993 Law Enforcement

The survey

represents

a broad

population

of officers

and reflects

the diverse

composition

of American

police.

20


Management and Administrative Statis-tics (LEMAS) survey of agencies with100 or more officers, where 11 percentof county police and 9 percent ofmunicipal police did not have fieldassignments (BJS, 1995).

Many scholars and policy makers haveemphasized the importance of educa-tion in developing a modern police (seeNational Advisory Commission onCriminal Justice Standards and Goals,1973; Carter and Sapp, 1990; Worden,1990; Travis, 1995). Almost one-thirdof the sample had a bachelor’s degreeor higher (see Table 3.2). Additionally,52 percent had a two-year degree orsome college education, and almost15 percent had graduated from highschool (or had a GED). Only five ofthe officers surveyed had only somehigh school education. Reflecting the

growth in professional police educa-tion, more than half of those who hadattended college reported that they hadmajored in criminology, criminaljustice, or police science. Some 15 per-cent of the weighted sample werecontinuing their education in pursuitof a degree.

This survey reinforces earlier studiesthat suggest that American policingreflects the racial and ethnic composi-tion of the U.S. population (seeBJS, 1995). In the weighted sample,80.8 percent of the officers were white,as compared with 80.3 percent of thepopulation (Bureau of the Census,1991), and 10.7 percent were AfricanAmerican, as compared with 12 per-cent in the national population (seeTable 3.3).

12 Also, 9.6 percent of the

weighted sample, compared with

Tab

le 3

.1Officers’ Current Rank

Number PercentageRank of Officers of Officers

Patrol Officer 514 55.7

Detective/Criminal Investigator 110 12.0

Corporal 36 4.0

Sergeant 142 15.3

Lieutenant 56 6.1

Captain 17 1.7

Inspector 2 0.2

Major 3 0.3

Deputy Chief 6 0.6

Chief 14 1.5

Other 24 2.4

N = 924

This survey

reinforces

earlier studies

that suggest

that American

policing

reflects the

racial and

ethnic

composition

of the U.S.

population.

21

Police Foundation

8.8 percent of the U.S. population, iden-tified themselves as of Hispanic, Latino,or Spanish origin (see Table 3.4).

While the racial composition of Ameri-can policing may reflect the nation fromwhich it is drawn, American policingremains a predominantly male profes-sion. Only 8.5 percent of the samplewere women (see Figure 3.1). Othersources provided similar estimates.According to the National Center forWomen and Policing (1998), “Womencurrently make up less than 10 percentof sworn police officers nationwide.”This figure was also consistent with the1993 LEMAS survey, which reportedthat 8 percent of officers in municipalpolice departments and 10 percent ofofficers in county police departmentswere women (BJS, 1995).

Despite the controversies that surroundAmerican policing, our survey shows thatAmerican police officers are generallysatisfied with their career choice. Indeed,almost all of the officers we surveyed(94 percent) indicated that they weresatisfied and over half of those said thatthey were “extremely” satisfied with theirchoice of policing as a profession (seeFigure 3.2). Only two officers describedthemselves as extremely dissatisfied withtheir career choice. Even when askedabout their satisfaction with their currentassignment, more than 90 percent of thesample indicated that they weresatisfied, of whom 40 percent were“extremely” satisfied. Nevertheless,46 percent of police officers describedtheir work as extremely stressful (16 per-cent) or quite stressful (30 percent).

Tab

le 3

.2

Education Level of Officers

Number PercentageHighest Level Attained of Officers of Officers

Some High School 5 0.5

High School Graduate/GED 133 14.7

Some College 303 33.1

Associate’s Degree (2 year) 174 18.6

Bachelor’s Degree (4 year) 258 27.6

Some Graduate School 19 2.0

Master’s Degree 29 3.2

Doctoral Degree or Law Degree 3 0.3

N = 924

While the

racial

composition

of American

policing may

reflect the

nation…,

American

policing

remains a

predominantly

male

profession.

22


Racial Background of Officers

Number PercentageRace of Officers of Officers

White 748 80.8

African American 94 10.7

American Indian or Alaskan Native 8 0.8

Asian 8 0.8

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 3 0.3

Other 36 4.3

Mixed Race 24 2.4

N = 921

Tab

le 3

.3Ta

ble

3.4

Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic Officers

African-White American OtherOfficers Officers Officers TOTAL

Hispanic 44 (6.2%) 2 (1.8%) 38 (51.6%) 84 (9.6%)

Non-Hispanic 703 (93.8%) 92 (98.2%) 41 (48.4%) 836 (90.4%)

N = 920

Fig

ure

s3.

1 &

3.2

Officers’ Satisfaction With CareerOfficers’ Gender

Male 848 (91.5%)

Satisfied 871 (94.4%)

Female 76 (8.5%)

Dissatisfied 52 (5.6%)

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

23

Police Foundation

IV

MAIN SURVEYRESULTS

Abuse of Authorityand the Use of ForceThe use of force may be a relativelyrare occurrence in American policing(Worden and Shepard, 1996), but thoseincidents that do occur escalate toooften to the level of excessive force.

13

In trying to understand why, we askeda series of questions that address theattitudes that police officers havetoward the use of force and theirperceptions of the behavior of theirfellow officers.

Our survey shows that most policeofficers in the United States disapproveof the use of excessive force. Nonethe-less, a substantial minority believe thatthey should be permitted to use moreforce than the law currently permits, andthey consider it acceptable to sometimes

The survey consisted of more than 80

questions that relate to the problem of

abuse of authority (see Appendix A).

Below, we summarize the main find-

ings of the study. First, we examine re-

sults across the entire sample, focus-

ing on six central concerns: (a) abuse

of authority and the use of force, (b)

the code of silence, (c) social factors,

(d) departmental responses, (e) con-

trolling abuse, and (f) community

policing. We then turn to comparisons

of subgroup responses according to re-

gional variation, size of department,

supervisory status, racial variation, and

gender variation. For example, are the

perceptions of white officers different

from those of African Americans or

other minorities? Does it matter if the

officer is from the Midwest or the South?

…[M]ost police

officers in the

United States

disapprove

of the use

of excessive

force.

24


use more force than permitted by thelaws that govern them. The officers re-vealed this attitude in their responses toseveral questions that were presented tothem. More than 30 percent of the sampleexpressed the opinion that “policeofficers are not permitted to use as muchforce as is often necessary in makingarrests” (see Table 4.1). Almost 25 per-cent felt that it is sometimes acceptableto use more force than legally allowableto control a person who physically as-saults an officer. A very substantial mi-nority, more than 4 of 10, told us thatalways following the rules is not com-patible with getting the job done (seeAppendix A, a19).

Most officers are not interested in hold-ing themselves to higher standards than

required by law. More than 65 percentof the sample officers were content thatpolice department rules about the useof force not be stricter than requiredby law. Still, almost 35 percent did feelthat departmental rules should bestricter than required by law. And whenasked whether police officers shouldbe allowed to use physical force inresponse to verbal abuse, a very smallnumber, only 7 percent, thought thatthis clear violation of current normsshould be allowed.

Although a substantial minority ex-pressed the view that the police shouldbe permitted to use more force, theoverwhelming majority of the sampledid not believe that officers do engagein an excessive use of force on a

Tab

le 4

.1Officers’ Attitudes Toward Limitations on Use of Force

It issometimesacceptable

Police to use more Police Policeare not force than department officerspermitted is legally rules about should beto use as allowable to the use of allowed tomuch force control some- force should use physicalas is often one who not be any force innecessary physically stricter than responsein making assaults an required to verbalarrests. officer. by law. abuse.(N=912) (N = 912) (N = 915) (N = 920)

Percent

Strongly Agree 6.2 3.3 6.7 0.4

Agree 24.9 21.2 58.9 6.6

Disagree 60.5 55.2 32.3 67.6

Strongly Disagree 8.4 20.3 2.1 25.4

…[T]he…majority

…did not believe

that officers

...engage in

an excessive

use of force

on a regular

basis.

25

Police Foundation

regular basis. A mere 4 percent thoughtthat police officers regularly used morephysical force than was necessary inmaking arrests (see Appendix A, a10).And almost everyone (97 percent) agreedthat serious cases of misconduct, suchas the Rodney King case in Los Angelesand the Abner Louima case in NewYork, are “extremely rare” in their de-partments (see Appendix A, a40).

Still, they did not give their fellow offic-ers a completely clean report. Whenasked about their perceptions of thebehavior of officers in their own depart-ments, almost 22 percent of the weightedsample suggested that officers in theirdepartment sometimes (or often, oralways) use more force than necessary,

and only 16 percent reported that theynever did so (see Table 4.2). Althoughthe large majority of respondents feltthat it is inappropriate to respond to ver-bal abuse with physical force, almost15 percent thought that officers in theirdepartment engaged in such behaviorsometimes (or often, or always).

Code of SilenceSome of the most strongly held andvaried responses addressed the trou-bling area of whether officers shouldtell when they know that misconducthas occurred. The responses suggestthe possibility of a large gap betweenattitudes and behavior. That is, officersdo not believe in protecting wrong-doers; nevertheless, they often do notturn them in.

Tab

le 4

.2

Officers’ Perceptions of Use of Force Behavior in Their Department

Police officersin your

Police officers departmentin [city] use respond tomore force than verbal abusenecessary to with physicalmake an arrest. force.(N = 922) (N = 922)

Sometimes, Often, or Always 196 (21.7%) 137 (14.7%)

Seldom 581 (62.4%) 497 (53.5%)

Never 145 (16.0%) 288 (31.8%)

…[O]fficers

do not believe

in protecting

wrongdoers;

nevertheless,

they often

do not turn

them in.

26


The survey shows that more than 80percent of American police do notaccept that the code of silence is anessential part of the mutual trust nec-essary to achieve good policing (seeTable 4.3). However, about a quarterof the sample told us that whistle blow-ing is not worth it, and more than two-thirds reported that police officers werelikely to be given a “cold shoulder” byfellow officers if they reported incidentsof misconduct. A majority felt that itwas not unusual for police officers toturn a “blind eye” to improper conductby other officers (see Table 4.4). Evenwhen it came to reporting serious crimi-nal violations, a surprising 6 in 10report that police officers did not al-ways report serious criminal violationsinvolving abuse of authority by fellowofficers.

During the focus groups, officers re-sisted the notion of a code of silence,but agreed in the end that the codestands except in the case of criminalviolations. For instance, one supervi-sor suggested, “I don’t think there’s acode of silence at all when we are talk-ing about criminal conduct. And if itis, those people are part of a criminalmind.” Another said, “I think that thewall of silence, as far as criminal things,is a thing of the past. I hear a lot ofcops saying they are not going to lose

their house because of you.” However,they admitted that in individual cases,it is very difficult to betray fellowofficers even when those officers areinvolved in criminal matters.

In the survey we presented several sce-narios involving misconduct, and weasked the officers a series of questionsabout the seriousness of the conduct,the consequences that should andwould follow that conduct, andwhether they or others in the depart-ment would report such conduct. Inone scenario, “An officer has a hand-cuffed suspect sitting at his desk whilehe fills out the necessary paperwork.With no provocation from the officer,the suspect suddenly spits in the faceof the officer. The officer immediatelypushes the suspect in the face causingthe suspect to fall from the chair ontothe floor.” There was wide variation inperception of the offense’s seriousness,from 15 percent of the sample consid-ering it not serious at all to 16 percentconsidering it very serious (see Table4.5). But would respondents report anofficer who engaged in this behavior?Only 3 in 10 stated that they woulddefinitely report. Even fewer, only11 percent of the sample, thought thatmost officers in their agency woulddefinitely report the offense.

…[M]ore than

80 percent

of American

police do not

accept that the

code of silence

is an essential

part of the

mutual trust

necessary to

achieve good

policing.

27

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.3

Code of Silence: Attitudes

An officer whoreports another

The code of officer’s mis-silence is an conduct isessential part likely to beof the mutual given thetrust necessary Whistle blowing “cold shoulder”to good policing. is not worth it. by fellow officers.(N = 905) (N = 904) (N = 908)

Percent

Strongly Agree 1.2 3.1 11.0

Agree 15.7 21.8 56.4

Disagree 65.6 63.5 30.9

Strongly Disagree 17.5 11.7 1.8

Code of Silence: Perceptions of Behavior

It is not unusualfor a police Police officersofficer to turn always reporta blind eye serious violationsto improper involving abuseconduct by of authority byother officers. fellow officers(N = 908) (N = 899)

Percent

Strongly Agree 1.8 2.8

Agree 50.6 36.2

Disagree 43.3 58.5

Strongly Disagree 4.4 2.5

Tab

le 4

.4

28


Tab

le 4

.5Scenario of an Unruly Suspect: “An officer has a handcuffed suspectat his desk while he fills out the necessary paperwork. With noprovocation from the officer, the suspect suddenly spits in the faceof the officer. The officer immediately pushes the suspect in the facecausing the suspect to fall from the chair onto the floor.”

How serious do you consider the officer’sbehavior to be?(N = 914)

Very Serious 135 (15.6%)

Quite Serious 188 (20.2%)

Moderately Serious 249 (27.3%)

Not Very Serious 201 (21.7%)

Not Serious at All 141 (15.3%)

Do you think you would report a fellow officerwho engaged in this behavior?(N = 914)

Definitely Yes 262 (28.9%)

Possibly Yes 207 (22.6%)

Probably Not 254 (27.7%)

Definitely Not 191 (20.8%)

Do you think most officers in your agencywould report a fellow officer who engagedin this behavior?(N = 908)

Definitely Yes 94 (10.8%)

Possibly Yes 270 (29.7%)

Probably Not 378 (41.3%)

Definitely Not 166 (18.3%)

29

Police Foundation

Social FactorsThe question of the role of extralegalfactors in law enforcement has longbeen a concern among criminologists.Although sociologists since the 1950s(Westley, 1953) have suggested that acitizen’s demeanor affects police be-havior, recently some authors havecalled into question the importance ofbeing “in contempt of cop” and haveargued for a more precise definition ofthe term “demeanor,” one that limitsits meaning to verbal behavior (Klinger,1994; Lundman, 1994). However, evenwith a more careful definition of terms,the consensus seems to have returnedto the view that a disrespectful or hos-tile demeanor displayed by a citizenwill affect the police-citizen encounter

and will increase the likelihood of anarrest (Klinger, 1996; Lundman, 1996;Worden and Shepard, 1996). Our sur-vey shows that police in the U.S. arealmost evenly divided in their opinionsof whether a police officer is more likelyto arrest a person who displays what heor she considers to be a bad attitude.Some 49 percent of the sample thoughtthat a bad attitude could affect the likeli-hood of arrest, while 51 percent dis-agreed (see Table 4.6).

Do other extralegal factors, such aswhether citizens are African Americanor white, or poor or middle class, makea difference in the treatment theyreceive from the police? The crimino-logical literature is split on the extent

Tab

le 4

.6

Perceptions of the Effects of Extra-Legal Factors on Police Behavior

Policeofficers are Police

A police more likely to officers areofficer is Police use physical more likely tomore likely officers force against use physicalto arrest a often treat African force againstperson who whites better Americans poor peopledisplays what than they and other than againsthe or she do African minorities middle-classconsiders Americans than against people into be a and other whites in sim- similarbad attitude. minorities. ilar situations. situations.(N=917) (N = 914) (N = 916) (N = 918)

Percent


Agree 46.7 15.8 9.4 12.2

Disagree 45.1 57.8 55.6 57.9


…[P]olice…are

almost evenly

divided in

their opinions

of whether a

police officer

is more likely

to arrest a

person who

displays…

a bad attitude.

30


to which race affects everyday polic-ing (Mastrofski, Parks, DeJong, andWorden, 1998), the likelihood of beingarrested (Tonry, 1995; Black and Reiss,1970; Lundman, Sykes, and Clark, 1978;Smith and Visher, 1981; Smith, Visher,and Davidson, 1984; Worden, 1996;Lundman, 1996), and the use of exces-sive force (Adams, 1996; Worden, 1996;Reiss, 1971; Walker, Spohn, andDeLone, 1996; Ogletree, Prosser, Smith,and Talley, 1995). According to oursample, almost 2 in 10 police officersin the U.S. believe that whites aretreated better than African Americansand other minorities (see Table 4.6).More than 1 in 10 said that there ismore police violence against AfricanAmericans than against whites.

14 More-

over, 14 percent of the sample believedthat police use physical force against poorpeople more often than against middle-class people in similar situations.

What were the police officers’ viewsof how the public perceives thepolice? More than 75 percent did notfeel that “most people do not respectthe police” (see Table 4.7). Put morepositively, more than 75 percent ofofficers felt that most people respect thepolice. Indeed, 88 percent of police inour sample described the relationshipbetween the police and the citizens intheir locality as very good. However,more than half of our sample thoughtthat the “public is too concerned withpolice brutality” (see Table 4.8), andmore than 80 percent of police officerstold us that the newspapers and TV inthis country are too concerned withpolice brutality (see Table 4.8). As oneofficer in the focus group of policesupervisors noted in regard to themedia, “They are absolutely ruthlesswhen it comes to police officers.”

Tab

le 4

.7Police Perceptions of the Public’s Attitude Toward the Police

The relationshipbetween the

Most people do police andnot respect the citizens in [city]police. is very good.(N = 924) (N = 923)

Percent


Agree 19.1 69.4

Disagree 65.2 9.9


…Eighty-eight

percent…

described the

relationship

between the

police and

the citizens

in their

locality as

very good.

31

Police Foundation

Supervisors and rank-and-file officersalike complained that they are judgedon the sensational misdeeds of offic-ers from cities far away from their own.As one said, “We’re judged on RodneyKing, Fuhrman.” Another officer put itthis way, “And as far as the Detroit deal,yeah, we caught heat behind that; L.A.,we caught heat behind that; and NewYork, yeah, we caught heat behindthat.” Still another presented the mi-nority view that the media do treat themfairly, “Our department has a great dealof credibility and respect from themedia.”

Departmental ResponseWe polled the officers for their viewsof how their departments handle casesof abuse of authority. Officers in thesample overwhelmingly (93 percent)reported that their departments take avery tough stance on improper behav-

ior by police (see Table 4.9). And theyoverwhelmingly (94 percent) disagreedwith the suggestion that investigationsof police misconduct are usually biasedin favor of the police.

When asked about the effectiveness ofdifferent institutional procedures foraddressing abuses of authority, mostpeople considered internal affairs unitseffective (79 percent), while a muchsmaller percentage (38 percent) con-sidered citizen review boards an effec-tive means for preventing police mis-conduct. This preference for internalreview was consistent with views ex-pressed during the focus groups. Onerank-and-file officer argued that law-yers and doctors police themselves sowhy shouldn’t police, “Who is on thebar association? Who is on doctors’ as-sociations? Doctors judging doctors;doctors policing doctors. We arespecial[ists]; we’ve got training; we deal

Tab

le 4

.8

Perceptions of Media and Citizens’ Concern Toward Police Abuse

The newspapersand TV in this

The public is too country are tooconcerned with concerned withpolice brutality. police brutality.(N = 918) (N = 920)

Percent


Agree 41.6 44.2

Disagree 42.5 19.0


Supervisors

and rank-

and file…

complained…

they are

judged on the

sensational

misdeeds of

officers from

cities far

away from

their own.

32


with other people just like them. Why

are we different?” One supervisor sug-gested, “Internal affairs works. Civilian

review authority—as soon as you men-

tion civilian review, the knee-jerk re-

action is no way; yadda yadda, they

go on and on. If they only knew, civil-

ian review authority is nothing morethan a toothless tiger. They’re easier on

cops than the departments are them-selves. Bottom line.” Another supervi-sor agreed, “I think internal affairs ismore threatening because we’re policeofficers. We’ve all been out there. Sowe know how to play the game.”

Controlling AbuseCan leadership make a difference inpreventing police officers’ abuse of

authority? American police overwhelm-ingly told us that leadership makes adifference. Eighty-five percent of theofficers said that a police chief’s tak-ing a strong position against abuses ofauthority can make a big difference inpreventing officers from abusing theirauthority (see Table 4.10). Policingscholars have long recognized theimportance of the chief’s role. Skolnickand Fyfe (1993, p. 136) for exampleargue, “ [T]he chief is the mainarchitect of police officers’ street be-havior. This is so because the strengthand direction of street-level police peerpressures ultimately are determined byadministrative definitions of good andbad policing and by the general tonethat comes down from the top.”

Tab

le 4

.9Departmental Responses to Abuse of Authority

Your police Investiga- Internal Citizendepartment tions of affairs units reviewtakes a police are not boards arevery tough misconduct effective effectivestance on are usually means for means forimproper biased preventing preventingbehavior in favor police policeby police. of police. misconduct. misconduct.(N = 921) (N = 914) (N = 910) (N = 872)

Percent


Agree 57.4 5.1 19.0 34.7

Disagree 6.6 72.4 66.2 48.4


Eighty-five

percent…said…

a police chief’s

…strong position

against abuses

…can make a

big difference

in preventing

officers from

abusing their

authority

33

Police Foundation

Elsewhere, Skolnick and Bayley (1986,p. 220) suggest that executive leader-ship might be even more important inpolice departments, with their “tradi-tional paramilitary character,” than inother organizations: “Police depart-ments are not democratically run orga-nizations. Everyone within them is ei-ther aware or attuned to the chief’spreferences, demands, and expecta-tions.” Skolnick and Bayley (1986,p. 6) argue, “[A]dministrative leadership,an animating philosophy of values, canindeed effect change.”

As important as the role of the chief maybe in preventing abuse, an even greatermajority—90 percent of police in thesample—told us that good first-line su-

pervisors can help prevent police offic-ers from abusing their authority (seeTable 4.10). As an officer who partici-pated in one of the focus groups ex-pressed it, “The supervisor, the first-linesupervisor, the sergeant, is so criticallyimportant in how he sets the tone, theexpectations. How he says things andsupports department programs or doesn’tsupport them. If not by what he says,then by body language and tone of voice.How he sells it or doesn’t sell it. Thatsort of thing, I think, is real.” It is thesupervisor as “role model” who surfacesas the critical aspect in good first-lineleadership. Following this, 55 percentof those surveyed thought that develop-ing more effective means of super-vision would prevent abuse of force.

Tab

le 4

.10

The Role of Supervision in Controlling Abuse

If a policechief takes astrong positionagainst abusesof authority,he or she can Most policemake a big Good first-line abuse of forcedifference in supervisors could be stoppedpreventing can help prevent by developingofficers from police officers more effectiveabusing their from abusing methods ofauthority. their authority. supervision.(N = 920) (N = 921) (N = 913)

Percent


Agree 60.3 66.9 48.0

Disagree 13.8 9.3 39.5


It is the

supervisor

as “role

model” who

surfaces as

the critical

aspect in

good first-line

leadership.

34


In the focus group of chiefs of policeand policing scholars, concern was ex-pressed over the changing role of thesupervisor in community policing.Chief Jerry Sanders of San Diego sug-gested that by creating “teams” andreducing “spans of control all of a sud-den we find the sergeants are closer tothe team members, the officers, thanthey are to the department. They areso close to the people on the team thatit creates problems.”

Commissioner Thomas Frazier of Bal-timore and Chief Jerry Sanders agreedthat the management dynamics of thedepartment had been changed, and alieutenant with 24-hour responsibilitymight not see his or her sergeants for aweek or two at a time. Professor CarlKlockars suggested that communitypolicing officers operate independently,almost without supervision, and Profes-sor Alfred Slocum suggested that the lack

of supervision was “conducive tocorruption.” The opinions expressed bythe officers in our survey—about the dif-ference that good supervisors can makein controlling abuse of authority—sug-gest that such concern by police execu-tives and academics is well placed. Theybelieved that good supervision matters.

Contrary to the traditional view thatmost important policing lessons areobtained through experience in thefield and not in the academy (Bayleyand Bittner, 1984), scholars and policeprofessionals have recently emphasizedthe importance of changing models ofpolice training. This has led to arenewal of commitment to training ef-forts and to exploring vastly differenttraining curricula (e.g., see Grant andGrant, 1996; Scrivner, 1994; Goldstein,1979; Trojanowicz and Bucqueroux,1994). The good news is that policeofficers who have received training inethics, in interpersonal skills, and in

Tab

le 4

.11

Officers’ Perceptions of the Effects of Training on Abuse of Authority

Do you thinkDo you think interpersonal Do you thinkethics in law skills or interper- human diversityenforcement sonal relations or cultural aware-training is training is ness trainingeffective in effective in is effective inpreventing abuse preventing abuse preventing abuseof authority? of authority? of authority?(N = 576) (N = 674) (N = 807)

Yes 472 (82.2%) 544 (80.3%) 603 (74.9%)

No 104 (17.8%) 130 (19.7%) 204 (25.1%)

…[O]fficers

who have

received

training in

ethics, in

interpersonal

skills, and in

cultural

sensitivity

report…such…

training can

play a role in

controlling

abuses….

35

Police Foundation

cultural sensitivity report that suchspecialized training can play a role incontrolling abuses of police authority.

A substantial majority (82 percent) ofthose officers in the sample who havereceived training in law enforcementethics either in the academy or sincebecoming a police officer told us thatsuch training prevents abuse of author-ity (see Table 4.11). A similar majority(80 percent) who have received policetraining in interpersonal skills orinterpersonal relations felt that thistraining prevents abuse of authority.And 75 percent of officers who reportedreceiving training in human diversity,cultural differences, cultural awareness,or ethnic sensitivity said that thistraining prevents abuse of authority.

Community-OrientedPolicingThe study provides strong evidence ofthe penetration of the community

policing idea into policing in the U.S.The survey shows that police todayoverwhelmingly support a philosophythat looks to the public for advice andcooperation. Several statements formeda group designed to measure officers’opinions of the police-communitypartnership that is generally considereda necessary component of community-oriented policing. Respondents over-whelmingly agreed that working withcitizens was an important and effec-tive means of solving neighborhoodproblems. For example, nearly allagreed that “[c]itizens can be a vitalsource of information about the prob-lems in their neighborhood,” that“[p]olice should work with citizens totry and solve problems on their beat,”and that “[p]olice should make frequentinformal contact with people on theirbeat” (see Table 4.12).

But what of the relationship betweencommunity policing and abuse of au-

Tab

le 4

.12

The Community-Police Partnership

Citizens can bea vital source of Police should work Police should makeinformation about with citizens to frequent informalthe problems try and solve contact within their problems on their people on theirneighborhood. beat. beat.(N = 924) (N = 924) (N = 921)

Percent


Agree 20.7 34.3 42.0

Disagree 0.1 0.4 1.2


…[P]olice

today over-

whelmingly

support a

philosophy

that looks

to the public

for advice and

cooperation.

36


thority? Police in our sample generallyindicated that a close relationship withthe community does not increase therisk of police corruption. We asked thisquestion in two ways. Without referringto community policing, we asked all of-ficers whether they agreed that “[f]requentfriendly contact with local residents andmerchants increases the likelihood thatpolice officers will accept free lunches,discounts, or gifts of appreciation for ef-fective service” (see Appendix A, a34).Although one in five officers agreed withthe statement, almost 80 percentdisagreed. Almost all the officers in thesurvey were familiar with the concept ofcommunity-oriented policing (98 per-cent). We asked those officers whetherthey thought that community policingincreases, decreases, or has no impacton the risk of corrupt behavior. Only

7 percent of the officers told us theythought community policing increasesthe risk of corruption. Over a thirdthought it decreases the risk of corrup-tion, and another 57 percent thought ithad no effect (see Table 4.13).

Some scholars have suggested that com-munity policing may decrease the likeli-hood of gross forms of corruption, suchas extortion, while increasing the temp-tations toward softer forms of corrup-tion, such as the free lunch, the “profes-sional” discount, or the gift of apprecia-tion for effective service (Weisburd,McElroy, and Hardyman, 1988). Otherssuggest that community policing has nodiscernible impact on corrupt behavior(McElroy, Cosgrove, and Sadd, 1990).

In the focus groups, there was consen-sus among the officers that community

Tab

le 4

.13

Perceptions of the Effects of Community Policing on Abuse of Authority

Do you think Do you think Do you thinkthat community that community that communitypolicing increases, policing increases, policing increases,decreases, or decreases, or decreases, orhas no impact has no impact has no impacton the risk on the number on the seriousnessof corrupt of excessive of excessivebehavior force incidents? force incidents?(N=883) (N = 885) (N = 884)

Increases 63 (7.1%) 17 (2.0%) 32 (3.4%)

Decreases 316 (35.8%) 450 (50.9%) 373 (42.2%)

Has no impact 504 (57.1%) 418 (47.1%) 479 (54.4%)

…[A] close

relationship

with the

community

does not

increase the

risk of police

corruption.

37

Police Foundation

policing does not lead to corruptbehavior, and there was concern amongofficers that chiefs are inappropriatelyconcerned about this possibility. Onesupervisor explained why communitypolicing is not a return to the day of thecorrupt beat officer:

But I think we’re in a different day

and age, and I’m not so sure we’re

going to get community-oriented

policing to lead us into the corruption

that we saw back then, and the rea-

son why I think [so] is we’ve had things

like Rodney King and what’s happened

in Chicago and what happened there

and what’s described as happening in

many cities. I think there is a different

emphasis on morality and ethics in law

enforcement than we saw back 40, 50

years ago. I don’t think even the pub-

lic has a tolerance for the corruption

that was a fact of daily life in New

York 50 years ago.

In the panel of police scholars andexecutives that we convened at thebeginning of the study, concern wasexpressed about the potential for cor-ruption under community policing. AsBaltimore’s Commissioner ThomasFrazier said, “One of the things thattroubles me about community polic-ing is you talk about establishing rela-tionships. The longer the relationshipexists, I think the more opportunity forcorruption.” Professor Klockars pointedout the irony of some situations, “So ifyou run a McDonald’s and you give acop a free meal, that’s corruption.But if you give a whole booth, that’s

community policing.”

Chief Jerry Sanders of San Diego said,

I think it’s just much more subtle now

than it was before. And it’s hard to

talk in those shades because the of-

ficers get invited to dinner at people’s

houses because they create friend-

ships. The friendships are created,

which is what we’re trying to do. And

when is it not? And when is it a gratu-

ity to go into a friend’s business and

get a cup of coffee and when is it not?

I mean, I just think these are

really difficult issues for not only the

police officers but for police manage-

ment. Where do we draw the line? Is

it, as O. W. Wilson said, “The first cup

of coffee you take for free is the start

of corruption,” or is it we need to be a

little bit more understanding about the

motives that we’re talking about?

While such concerns are expressed bypolice scholars and executives, they arenot seen as significant by the vastmajority of American police.

What do officers think is the relation-ship between community policing andexcessive force? Almost no one told usthat community policing would increasethe amount (2 percent) or seriousness(3 percent) of excessive force incidents(see Table 4.13). A majority saidthat community policing decreasesthe incidents of excessive force(51 percent), and 42 percent thought itwould decrease the seriousness of ex-cessive force incidents. Many thought ithad no impact on either the amount

…[C]ommunity

policing does

not lead

to corrupt

behavior, and…

chiefs are

inappropriately

concerned

about this

possibility.

38


of excessive force (47 percent) or theseriousness of excessive force incidents(54 percent).

The community policing partnershipcan be complicated. Almost all officers(97 percent) told us that “[p]olice offic-ers sometimes have to explain to indi-viduals and groups of citizens that thepolice are prohibited by law from us-ing some of the tactics that citizensencourage them to use” (see Appendix A,a32). But 21 percent felt that they coulduse more aggressive tactics than theyotherwise would if the community hadasked them to do so (see Appendix A,a33). Whether they might sometimescross the line to tactics prohibited bylaw remained unanswered.

We presented the officers with one oftwo versions of a scenario that ad-dressed, among other issues, whetherthey would feel justified in using moreaggressive tactics if asked by the com-munity (see p. 61). In one version, arandomly assigned half (438) of the of-ficers responded to a set of questionsbased on the following scenario:

While patrolling his beat, an officer

notices several youths standing on a

corner smoking cigarettes and talking

to one another. The officer tells the

youths to break it up and leave the

area. The youths say, “We’re not

doing anything. Why are you hassling

us?” The officer gets out of the car

and orders the youths to place their

hands up against the wall of a build-

ing. They refuse. The officer throws

them against the wall and searches

them. Finding nothing, the officer uses

demeaning language, then tells them

that this “will teach you to respect the

law” and “I’d better not see you here

again” and gets in his patrol car and

drives off.

In the other version (see p. 63), theother half (482) of the officersresponded to a set of questions basedon the following scenario:

In a community meeting, citizens told

police that they were very concerned

about groups of rowdy youths hang-

ing out on street corners. After the

meeting, an officer who participated

in the meeting notices several youths

standing on a corner smoking ciga-

rettes and talking to one another. The

officer tells the youths to break it up

and leave the area. The youths say,

“We’re not doing anything. Why are

you hassling us?” The officer gets out

of the car and orders the youths to

place their hands up against the wall

of a building. They refuse. The officer

throws them against the wall and

searches them. Finding nothing, the

officer uses demeaning language, tells

them that this “will teach you to re-

spect the law” and “I’d better not see

you here again,” and gets in his

patrol car and drives off.

With these scenarios, we could cap-ture whether officers felt justified intaking certain questionable actionswhen they had been asked by the com-munity to do so. Interestingly, the

“…[P]olice

officers

sometimes

have to explain

to individuals

and groups

of citizens that

the police are

prohibited

by law from

using some

of the tactics

that citizens

encourage

them to use.”

39

Police Foundation

answers of the two randomly assignedgroups of officers were virtually iden-tical to the series of questions that fol-lowed the scenarios. Most officers toldus that a verbal or written reprimandwould and should follow such an inci-dent. A substantial minority thoughtthe discipline would and should besuspension without pay. Slightly morethan one in three said they definitelywould report a fellow officer whoengaged in this behavior, whereas only1 in 10 believed that most officers intheir agency would report such an in-cident. These results suggest thatpolice officers do not feel justified inusing more aggressive tactics if askedby the community to do so.

Subgroup Analysis:Race, Rank, Region,Agency Size, GenderThus far, we have described what thesurvey suggests about the attitudes ofpolice generally toward abuse of au-thority. But the data can also revealsomething about how different sub-groups within American policing viewsuch issues. An analysis of subgroupdifferences is presented in cross-tabu-lations below. In reporting on differ-ences in responses among differentsubgroups of police officers, we noteagain that our statistics were adjustedaccording to the sampling procedureswe used.

RaceBy far the most striking differences wediscovered among subgroups in our

survey were among police officers ofdifferent racial groups. Although weoriginally grouped the officers in twocategories (white and non-white) so wecould have larger numbers in each cat-egory, when strong differences accord-ing to race emerged, we re-examinedthe data, peeling back the non-whitecategory into two subcategories: blacksor African Americans, and other minor-ity officers. In so doing, the significanceof the results increased, indicating thatAfrican-American officers hold the mostdistinctive positions on these issues.Without meaning to overstate thegeneralizability of our findings beyondAmerican policing, the survey tends tocorroborate the view that there is aracial divide between whites and Afri-can Americans in our society that is nottranscended even by a culture as ap-parently strong as the culture of polic-ing. Not that those differences emergedacross every item in our survey, butwhen they did occur, the relationshipswere strong, and the kinds of ques-tions in which they emerged groupedtogether in meaningful configurations.

Earlier we reported that almost 2 in 10officers in the weighted sample agreedthat police officers often treat whitesbetter than they do African Americansand other minorities. When we consid-ered this issue broken down by race,we found that more than half of the Af-rican-American officers felt this way (seeTable 4.14).

15 By comparison, fewer than

one in four among other minoritiesagreed with the statement, and fewer

…[T]here is a

racial divide

between

whites and

African

Americans in

our society

that is not

transcended

even by a

culture as…

strong as the

culture of

policing.

40


than one in eight white officers agreed.16

The divergence in views of AfricanAmericans and other officers continuesand grows when we examine whetherthey felt that police officers were morelikely to use physical force against Af-rican Americans and other minoritiesthan against whites in similar situations.While only 1 in 20 white officers inthe sample thought that African Ameri-cans and minorities received thisunfair treatment from police, well overhalf of the African-American officersthought unfair treatment was morelikely. Other minorities were more inagreement with the white officers (seeTable 4.15).

17

African-American officers did not seeunequal treatment by police as

determined only by race. While only2 percent of white officers in thesample thought that police officerswere more likely to use physicalforce against poor people thanagainst middle-class people in simi-lar situations, 54 percent of the Afri-can-American officers felt that way(see Table 4.16). Again, other minori-ties held a position between thewhite and African-American officers,but closer to the perspective of thewhite officers.

18

While the survey suggests that African-American officers may not trust theirfellow officers to treat minority and poorcitizens fairly, they did tend to respondmore positively to the role of commu-nity policing in reducing police abusesof authority. For example, we

Tab

le 4

.14

Police officers often treat whites better than they do African Americansand other minorities (by race). (N = 912)

Strongly StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Disagree

Percent

White Officers 0.7 11.2 60.5 27.7

African-American Officers 4.6 46.7 39.8 8.9

Other Minority Officers 2.4 21.0 53.8 22.9

x2 = 41.78 df = 6 p < .001

African-

American

officers

did not see

unequal

treatment

by police as

determined

only by race.

41

Police Foundation

Police officers are more likely to use physical force againstAfrican Americans and other minorities than against whites

in similar situations (by race). (N = 914)


Percent

White Officers 0.6 4.5 58.0 37.0



x2 = 86.80 df = 6 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.15

Tab

le 4

.16

Police officers are more likely to use physical force against poor peoplethan against middle-class people in similar situations (by race). (N = 916)


Percent

White Officers 0.8 8.0 60.1 31.1



x2 = 85.42 df = 6 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.17

Community-oriented policing increases, decreases, or has no impacton the number of incidents of excessive force (by race). (N = 883)

Has NoIncreases Decreases Impact

Percent

White Officers 1.2 49.2 49.6

African-American Officers 6.6 65.4 28.1

Other Minority Officers 3.9 50.1 46.0

x2 = 20.92 df = 4 p < .001

42


found a statistically significant relation-ship between race and support for theview that community-oriented policingdecreases the number of incidents ofexcessive force (see Table 4.17).

19

Although fewer than half of whiteofficers believed this to be the case,almost two-thirds of the African-Ameri-can police officers surveyed agreedwith this position. African-Americanpolice officers are also more likely tosay that community policing decreasedthe seriousness of incidents of exces-sive force (see Table 4.18). AmongAfrican-American police officers, 63percent expressed this view, as con-trasted with only 39 percent of whitepolice officers. Finally, African-Ameri-can officers also had more faith incitizen review boards as an effectivemeans for preventing police miscon-

duct. Almost 7 in 10 African-Americanofficers in the sample believed in theeffectiveness of citizen review,compared with one-third of white of-ficers (see Table 4.19). For such rela-tionships, other minority officers onceagain fell somewhere between African-American and white police officers.

As we continue to discuss relationshipsamong other subgroups in the weightedsample, it will become clear that—whileother interesting differences occur—no differences were as large as thosefound among these racial groups.

Rank: Supervisors andNonsupervisorsWhile most officers in the sample—those who were supervisors and thosewho were not—believed in the impor-

Tab

le 4

.18

Community-oriented policing increases, decreases, or has no impacton the seriousness of excessive force incidents (by race). (N = 882)

Has NoIncreases Decreases Impact

Percent

White Officers 3.2 39.0 57.9

African-American Officers 7.2 63.4 29.3

Other Minority Officers 1.0 46.8 52.3

x2 = 27.13 df = 4 p < .001

…[W]e

found a

…relationship

between race

and support

for the view

that

community-

oriented

policing

decreases

the number of

incidents of

excessive

force

43

Police Foundation

Citizen review boards are effective means for preventingpolice misconduct (by race). (N = 868)


Percent

White Officers 2.5 30.8 52.2 14.6



x2 = 32.04 df = 6 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.20

Good first-line supervisors can help prevent police officersfrom abusing their authority (by rank). (N = 921)


Percent

Nonsupervisors 16.5 70.2 12.4 0.9

Supervisors 38.5 58.8 1.9 0.8

x2 = 76.12 df = 3 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.19

Tab

le 4

.21

If a police chief takes a strong position against abuses of authority,he or she can make a big difference in preventing officers

from abusing their authority (by rank). (N = 920)


Percent


Supervisors 39.6 54.6 5.0 0.8

x2 = 71.15 df = 3 p < .001

44


tance of supervision to good policing,that belief was particularly strongamong the supervisors themselves.Thus, while more than 87 percent ofnonsupervisors in the survey (primarilypatrol officers) said that good first-linesupervisors could help prevent policeofficers from abusing their authority, 97percent of supervisors felt that way (seeTable 4.20).

20 Similar relationships are

found in other questions directly relatedto supervision. More than 80 percent ofnonsupervisors and almost 95 percentof supervisors believed that if a policechief took a strong position againstabuses of authority, he or she could makea big difference in preventing officersfrom abusing their authority (see Table4.21).

21 And 50 percent of nonsupervisors

and 68 percent of supervisors were likelyto believe that most police abuse of force

could be stopped by developing moreeffective methods of supervision (seeTable 4.22).

22

Still in keeping with their role as su-pervisors, but less predictable, was aseries of questions that suggested thatsupervisors were very serious in theirattitudes about reporting misbehaviorand that they held police officers to avery high standard. Well over 80 per-cent of supervisors believed in thevalue of blowing the whistle on mis-behavior by fellow officers, com-pared with just over 70 percent ofnonsupervisors (see Table 4.23).

23

Similarly, supervisors were much lesslikely to believe in the efficacy of thecode of silence (see Table 4.24),

24 and

supervisors disagreed to a muchgreater extent than non-super-visors that it is sometimes accept

Tab

le 4

.22

Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developingmore effective methods of supervision (by rank). (N = 913)


Percent


Supervisors 9.9 58.5 26.7 4.9

x2 = 33.01 df = 3 p <. 001

…[G]ood

first-line

supervisors

could help

prevent police

officers from

abusing their

authority.

45

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.23

Whistle blowing is not worth it (by rank). (N = 904)


Percent


Supervisors 1.1 15.6 68.4 15.0

x2 = 24.99 df = 3 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.24

The code of silence is an essential part of the mutual trustnecessary to good policing (by rank). (N = 905)


Percent


Supervisors 0.3 7.3 68.8 23.5

x2 = 28.46 df = 3 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.25

It is sometimes acceptable to use more force than is legally allowable tocontrol someone who physically assaults an officer (by rank). (N = 912)

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

Percent


Supervisors 1.8 14.6 56.8 26.9

x2 = 21.09 df = 3 p < .001

46


able to use more force than is legallyallowable to control someone whophysically assaults an officer (see Table4.25).

25 They were more interested than

nonsupervisors in having departmen-tal rules about the use of force that arestricter than required by law (see Table4.26).

26 Supervisors in our sample were

also more likely to note that commu-nity-oriented policing could decreasethe number and the seriousness of ex-cessive force incidents (see Table 4.27

27

and Table 4.28).28

RegionAs Professor Carl Klockars stated dur-ing the focus group of police scholarsand executives at the outset of thisstudy, “There are right answers in dif-ferent places.” During an untranscribedbreak in our rank-and-file focus group,

one officer explained that in her partof the country, it would be consideredan affront if a community policingofficer refused to accept an offer of acup of coffee. Those regional culturaldifferences might explain why officersfrom the southern region of the coun-try were more likely to offer an opin-ion that frequent friendly contact withlocal residents and merchants increasedthe likelihood that police officers wouldaccept free lunches, discounts, or giftsof appreciation for effective service (seeTable 4.29).

29

While regional differences did not showup as clearly as one might have expectedfor many questions in the survey,we did find a consistent differencebetween the western region of the coun-try and others on some specificindicators. Police officers from the

Tab

le 4

.26

Police department rules about the use of force should not be anystricter than required by law (by rank). (N = 915)


Percent


Supervisors 4.9 49.6 41.4 4.1

x2 = 24.90 df = 3 p < .001

…[W]e did

find a

consistent

difference

between the

western

region of the

country and

others….

47

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.27

Community-oriented policing increases, decreases, or has no impacton the number of excessive force incidents (by rank). (N = 885)

Has NoIncreases Decreases Impact TOTAL

Nonsupervisors 14 (2.3%) 285 (45.7%) 323 (52.1%) 622

Supervisors 3 (1.4%) 165 (63.5%) 95 (35.1%) 263

x2 = 22.91 df = 2 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.28

Community-oriented policing increases, decreases, or has no impacton the seriousness of excessive force incidents (by rank). (N = 884)

Has NoIncreases Decreases Impact TOTAL

Nonsupervisors 22 (3.3%) 244 (38.6%) 358 (58.1%) 624

Supervisors 10 (3.7%) 129 (50.9%) 121 (45.4%) 260

x2 = 10.96 df = 2 p < .05

Tab

le 4

.29

Frequent friendly contact with local residents and merchants increasesthe likelihood that police officers will accept free lunches, discounts,

or gifts of appreciation for effective service (by region). (N = 916)


Percent

North Central 1.0 18.2 60.4 20.3

Northeast 0.4 14.1 67.8 17.8

South 2.8 25.2 55.4 16.7

West 0.2 15.6 58.1 25.5

x2 = 23.08 df = 9 p < .001

48


West tended to have a more profes-sional outlook about policing or tendedto view policing as constrained by thelaw. Officers in the West were less likelyto agree that it is sometimes accept-able to use more force than is legallyallowable to control someone whophysically assaults an officer (see Table4.30).

30 And they are more likely to state

that police officers always report seri-ous criminal violations involving abuseof authority by fellow officers (seeTable 4.31).

31

Agency SizeAgency size also appeared relevant topolice officers’ concerns about policeabuse of authority. Officers from smalldepartments believed more strongly inthe efficacy of good supervision andin the authority of the chief to influ-

ence behavior. Officers in the largestdepartments more frequently demon-strated what arguably was a morecynical or alienated attitude about lead-ership in policing, although even inthose departments it was distinctly aminority viewpoint. The relationshipsdescribed were quite strong.

While 94 percent of officers from smalldepartments believed that if a policechief took a strong position againstabuses of authority, he or she couldmake a big difference in preventingofficers from abusing their authority,only 68.2 percent of officers from thelargest departments agreed (see Table4.32).

32 Similarly, while 97 percent of

officers from small departments agreedthat good first-line supervisors couldhelp prevent officers from abusing theirauthority, only 80 percent of officers

Tab

le 4

.30

It is sometimes acceptable to use more force thanis legally allowable to control someone who physically assaultsan officer (by region). (N = 912)

Agree Disagree TOTAL

North Central 40 (20.4%) 149 (79.6%) 189

Northeast 67 (29.4%) 163 (70.7%) 230

South 82 (26.8%) 229 (73.2%) 311

West 32 (17.7%) 150 (82.3%) 182

x2 = 8.76 df = 3 p < .05

Officers

from small

departments

believed more

strongly in

the efficacy

of good

supervision

and in the

authority

of the chief

to influence

behavior.

49

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.31

Police officers always report serious criminal violations involving abuseof authority by fellow officers (by region). (N = 899)

Agree Disagree TOTAL

North Central 63 (33.5%) 124 (66.5%) 187

Northeast 79 (35.1%) 145 (64.9%) 224

South 121 (40.0%) 189 (60.1%) 310

West 83 (48.6%) 95 (51.4%) 178

x2 = 9.81 df = 3 p < .05

Tab

le 4

.32

If a police chief takes a strong position against abuses of authority,he or she can make a big difference in preventing officersfrom abusing their authority (by agency size). (N = 920)


Percent

Small Departments 37.6 56.2 6.2 0.0

Medium Departments 24.9 62.7 11.3 1.1

Large Departments 14.0 54.2 28.4 3.4

x2 = 54.37 df = 6 p < .001

Tab

le 4

.33

Good first-line supervisors can help prevent officers fromabusing their authority (by agency size). (N = 921)


Percent




x2 = 25.93 df = 6 p < .001

50


Tab

le 4

.34

Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developing moreeffective methods of supervision (by agency size). (N = 913)


Percent




x2 = 16.44 df = 6 p < .05

from the largest departments agreed(see Table 4.33).

33 Following this pat-

tern, 71 percent of officers from smalldepartments agreed that most policeabuse of force could be stopped bydeveloping more effective methods ofsupervision, compared with 45 percentof officers from the largest departments(see Table 4.34).

34 Almost 8 in 10

officers from the largest departmentsbelieved that police administrators con-centrate on what police officers dowrong rather than what they do right,while just over half of the officers fromthe small departments agreed (seeTable 4.35).

35

GenderThe survey did not reveal meaningfuldifferences in the responses of officersaccording to gender. While several sta-

tistically significant results were found,the sizes of the differences were small,and no consistent theory or idea linked

them or suggested that they were

meaningful. We could argue that this

finding suggested that women adapt

to the dominant culture of policing or

that women who self-select to enter

policing are more like men in polic-

ing. However, this conclusion may be

premature. As the National Center for

Women and Policing (1998) reports,

“Women police perform better than

their male counterparts at defusing

potentially violent situations and

become involved in excessive use of

force incidents less often.” We think it

is possible that we did not ask ques-

tions in our survey that would reveal

specific differences between male and

female police officers in regard to the

problem of police abuse of authority.

…[O]fficers

from the largest

departments

believed…

police

administrators

concentrate on

what police

officers do

wrong rather

than what they

do right.

51

Police Foundation

Tab

le 4

.35

Police administrators concentrate on what police officers do wrongrather than what police officers do right (by agency size). (N = 920)


Percent




x2 = 32.92 df = 6 p < .001

52


V

CONCLUSION

Over the past three decades, Americanpolicing has gone through vast changesin its organization, tactics, and philoso-phy. At the forefront of such changeshas been the transition from traditionalmilitary and professional models ofpolicing, to innovative models ofcommunity policing. Our surveyfocused on the attitudes of Americanpolice toward abuse of authority in thisage of community policing. It isthe first truly representative study ofpolice attitudes in many years, and thusit provides an important set of findingsfor understanding American police andfor developing public policy.

It is clear from the survey that centralcomponents of the community po-

licing idea have filtered down to rank-and-file police officers. Police today over-whelmingly support a philosophy thatlooks to the public for advice and coop-eration in confronting problems of crimeand disorder. The survey was unambigu-ous in this regard. Nearly all who weresurveyed believed that citizens are vitalto good policing and that police mustwork with citizens in solving crime prob-lems. In turn, contrary to what some havefeared about community policing, offic-ers were more likely to state that com-munity policing reduces the potential forpolice abuse than increases that poten-tial. This finding, of course, does notmean that community policing has actu-ally reduced the level of abuse in

Police…support

a philosophy

that looks to

the public for

advice and

cooperation

in confronting

problems of

crime and

disorder.

53

Police Foundation

American policing, but rather thatpolice officers believe this to be the case.

Our portrait of attitudes toward policeabuse is much more ambiguous. Onthe one hand, we have much positiveevidence regarding the attitudes ofAmerican police officers and their viewsabout their colleagues. Most police wesurveyed do not agree that it is accept-able to use more force than is legallynecessary, even to control someonewho physically assaults an officer. Thevast majority identified extreme brandsof police abuse such as that reportedin the Rodney King and Abner Louimacases as being isolated and very rareoccurrences. Most police surveyed toldus that their police departments alwaystook a tough stand on the issue ofpolice abuse of citizens.

On the other hand, the survey suggeststhat police abuse remains a problemthat must be addressed by policy mak-ers and police professionals. Whilethe survey suggests that most policeofficers in the United States disapproveof the use of excessive force, a sub-stantial minority consider it acceptableto sometimes use more force than per-mitted by the laws that govern them.They also believe that they should bepermitted to use more force than thelaw currently permits. The code ofsilence also remains a troubling issuefor American police. It is still the casethat about a quarter of the police wesurveyed told us that whistle blowingis not worth it, and two-thirds reportedthat police officers were likely to be

given a “cold shoulder” by fellowofficers if they reported incidents ofmisconduct. Most police officers in thestudy reported that it is not unusualfor police officers to turn a “blind eye”to improper conduct by other officers.

These findings suggest that the cultureof silence, which has continuallyplagued reform in American policing,continues. But it must be recognizedthat from the perspective of police, theconcern of the public with problemsof police abuse is not proportional toits incidence. The survey shows thatmost American police believe that thepublic is too concerned with policeabuse. An even larger number believethat the media have paid too muchattention to this question. From theperspective of police, the public andthe press have placed too much of theirconcern on police abuse. At the sametime, the police we studied believedthat the relationship between policeand community is a good one, and isone in which the community overallhas respect for the police.

The survey suggests that race continuesto be an issue for American police. Onein five of those surveyed told us thatwhites are treated better by police thanAfrican Americans and other minorities.We cannot say whether this result rep-resents a change in attitudes either in amore positive or negative direction.However, we can conclude that a sub-stantial number of police in the U.S. seerace as an important factor in understand-ing abuses of police authority.

…[P]olice

officers

were likely

to be given a

“cold shoulder”

by fellow

officers if

they reported

incidents of

misconduct.…

[and] it is not

unusual for

police officers

to turn a

“blind eye”

to improper

conduct by

other officers.

54


It is particularly troubling that this per-ception was far more prevalent amongAfrican-American police officers thanamong others. Comparing African-American officers’ views about policeabuse with those of white and otherminority officers, we found significantand substantial differences. While asmall minority of white officers in thesample believed that police treat whitecitizens better than African-Americanor other minority citizens in similar situ-ations, a majority of African-Americanpolice officers held this view. Similardifferences were found between Afri-can-American and other policeofficers in their views on the likelihoodof using physical force against minori-ties and the poor. The magnitude ofsuch race-based differences suggests alarge gap between African-Americanpolice officers and other officers. Sucha deep divide was not predicted at theoutset of the study.

The survey also provides some surpris-ing and important lessons regardinghow police think abuses of policeauthority can be controlled. Consistentwith the suggestions of certain schol-ars and police professionals (Grant andGrant, 1996; Scrivner, 1994), mostofficers believed that training andeducation are effective methods forreducing police abuse. A substantialmajority of those who have experi-enced training in interpersonal skills,or have taken courses in ethics ordiversity, said that such education andtraining is effective in preventing

misbehavior. While those responses didnot tell us whether indeed such pro-grams are effective, they did tell us thatAmerican police themselves view theprograms as important and useful.

Police we surveyed also emphasizedthe importance of police managementin preventing police violence and otherforms of abuse. A large majority ofpolice believe that when the chief ofpolice takes a strong stand againstpolice violence, other police officerswill follow his or her lead. Similarly,police officers told us that good first-line supervision is an effective methodfor preventing police abuse. These find-ings reinforce the long-held view ofscholars and police professionals that de-veloping effective methods of supervi-sion and effective supervisors should bea first priority in efforts to control andprevent abuses of police authority.

While American police recognized theimportance of supervision in prevent-ing abuses, they continued to see atension between getting the police jobdone and controlling misbehavior.Almost half of the police surveyed toldus that “always following the rules” isnot compatible with “getting the jobdone.” More than half believed that su-pervisors focus too much on what theyare doing wrong and not enough onwhat they are doing right.

Abuse of police authority continues tobe a major public policy concern. Thissurvey adds the voices of rank-and-filepolice and supervisors to the debate

Comparing

African-

American

officers’ views

about police

abuse with

those of white

and other

minority

officers,

we found

significant

and

substantial

differences.

55

Police Foundation

over the nature of the problems that

American police face and the potential

solutions that can be brought. Our

study suggests that most police in the

United States understand the impor-

tance of limits to police authority, and

are sensitive to the dangers of corrup-

tion and abuse of force. Nonetheless,

police abuses of authority are a

continuing reality in American polic-

ing, as is the “code of silence” that

shields those who do abuse their

authority. What can be done to

prevent such abuses? According to

America’s police, education and train-

ing are effective means of preventing

police abuse. They also recognize the

continuing importance of effective

supervision, and the central role that

police executives play in sending

the message that police abuses of

authority cannot be tolerated.

…[P]olice

abuses…are a

continuing

reality…as is

the “code of

silence” that

shields those

who do

abuse their

authority.

56


ENDNOTES

1. Details regarding the sample areprovided in Chapter II of this report. Thesampling frame of the survey as estimatedby Maguire (1997) is 351,480 officers.

2. A number of questions wereadapted from two previous Police Foun-dation surveys (Pate and Hamilton, 1992;Wycoff and Oettmeier, 1993). We used sev-eral questions from a survey on ethicalconduct and discipline from Queensland,Australia (Criminal Justice Commission,1995). We adopted the question structure(although not the content) for presentinghypothetical scenarios from the survey in-strument on police integrity by Carl B.Klockars, Sanja Kutnjak-Ivkovic, and Will-iam E. Harver (no date). Scenarios wereprovided by Chief Jerry Oliver during theexpert focus group (see Appendix B) andby Earl Hamilton of the Police Foundationstaff. Some of the demographic questionswere developed with assistance from mem-bers of Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,who also assisted with editing the surveyquestions.

We also consulted a number of survey in-struments that addressed police ethics.They did not provide specific questionsbut assisted us in our thinking. The instru-ments included the Royal Barbados PoliceForce survey by Richard R. Bennett (1994),the Illinois Police Behavior Survey (Martinand Bensinger, 1994), an Australian sur-vey on police ethics (McConkey, Huon,and Frank, 1996), and a Police Founda-tion survey of Oregon State Police officers(Amendola, Hockman, and Scharf, 1996).

We conducted three focus groups, whichprovided a range of viewpoints from rank-and-file officers to chiefs and academics:The first group combined the knowledgeand experience of academic experts andpolice chiefs (for a full report, see Appen-dix B). The second group was composedof rank-and-file police officers from depart-ments across the country (see Appendix Cfor a full report, including selection crite-ria). The third group consisted of sergeantsand lieutenants from departments nation-wide (see Appendix D for a full report,

57

Police Foundation

including selection criteria). In addition tothe important contributions of the policescholars, chiefs, and officers who partici-pated in our focus groups, as well as theofficers who participated in the pretest, weconsulted with a number of police research-ers as we developed the survey instrument.Professors Carl Klockars, Peter Manning,Stephen Mastrofski, Albert Reiss, JeromeSkolnick, and Robert Worden providedvaluable criticism that impelled us to keepa sharp focus.

3. Care was taken to protect the con-fidentiality and anonymity of all officersparticipating in the survey, from the de-sign of the selection process through datacollection and analysis. Selected depart-ments were requested to provide to thePolice Foundation a list of the names of alltheir full-time, sworn personnel. From thisroster, officers were randomly selected forparticipation. This methodology enabled usto keep the names of the selected officersconfidential from their chief and other de-partmental personnel. (There was somevariation in this procedure. In two cases,the department generated the randomsample in their own computers in the pres-ence of Police Foundation researchers. Intwo others, departments provided serialnumbers from which we generated the ran-dom samples, and only then were we pro-vided names and contact information. Still,every effort was made to protect the pri-vacy of the officers in each situation.)

All information received by the Police Foun-dation from the departments, as well as in-terview and survey data, was kept in lockedfile cabinets. Access to such information waslimited to key project personnel.

Under the terms of a subcontract, all infor-mation furnished by the departments wasmade available to Mathematica Policy Re-search Inc. for the selection of officers andfor subsequent interviews. MathematicaPolicy Research Inc., in compliance withPolice Foundation policy, agreed to main-tain strict procedures designed to protect

the confidentiality of selected officers. Inaddition to restricting access to this infor-mation to key personnel at Mathematica,the Police Foundation withheld theidentity of selected officers from projectpersonnel.

Interviewing staff members at Mathematicasigned a confidentiality pledge prior to thesurveying period. In signing this pledge,interviewers agreed not to divulge any pri-vate, project-related information to any per-son not authorized to have access to suchinformation.

Serial numbers were assigned to selectedofficers before creating a machine-process-ing record and identifiers (i.e., name, ad-dress, telephone number, etc.). Those num-bers were not included in the machinerecord nor in the resulting database. Sur-vey data containing identifiers or potentialidentifiers were kept secured and were de-stroyed by Mathematica Policy ResearchInc. within 10 days of sending the data setto the Police Foundation.

4. We sought at the outset to gain anaccurate list of all U.S. police officers. How-ever, attempts to acquire names of currentpolice officers on a state-by-state basis fromstate licensing boards, although promisingat first, were ultimately frustrated and un-successful. As a result, we turned to thetwo-step process defined here.

5. The Northeastern region includesthe states of Connecticut, Maine, Massa-chusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, NewYork, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, andVermont. The South includes Alabama,Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Okla-homa, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,Virginia, and West Virginia. The North Cen-tral region includes the states of Illinois,Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minne-sota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Andthe Western region includes Alaska, Ari-

58


zona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

6. This method was developed in con-sultation with and conducted by John Hall,senior sampling statistician withMathematica Policy Research Inc.

The sample was selected using a stratifiedmultistage design. The sample initially in-cluded 121 police departments that wereselected by using probability proportionalto size (PPS) methods. To use PPS selec-tion, each department was assigned a mea-sure of size based on an estimate of itsnumber of full-time sworn officers.

Departments that were so large that theywere certain to be sampled using PPS meth-ods were selected with probability 1.0 andare called “certainty selections.”

Selection was made from a machine-read-able file (the sampling frame) that includedone record for each of the 5,014 eligiblepolice departments in the study. Eachrecord contained department identification,department type, region, and the estimatednumber of officers who were employedby the department and were eligible forthe survey. The estimated number of offic-ers was used as a measure of size in se-lecting the sample.

Before selection, the sample frame wasstratified by size and region. The size cat-egories were (a) certainty selections, (b)other departments with 25 or more full-time sworn officers, and (c) other depart-ments with 10–24 full-time sworn officers.The sample included nine certainty selec-tions: 84 from the middle-size group and28 from the smallest group.

The Police Foundation contacted sampleddepartments and, from each cooperatingdepartment, obtained a list of all officerseligible for the survey. Those lists containedidentifying information that enabled inter-viewers to contact sampled officers.

The sample selected from those lists wasof adequate size to allow completion of925 to 950 interviews. In certainty depart-ments, the number of officers selected wasbased on the proportion of the total popu-lation of officers represented by the de-partment. For noncertainty departmentswith 25 or more officers, we sampled 10per department. For the departments with10 to 24 officers, we sampled an average of4.5 (a random half of the sample was allo-cated 5 selections, and the other half, 4).

7. As noted in endnote 3, there wassome variation in this procedure. In twocases, the departments generated the ran-dom sample from their own computers inthe presence of Police Foundation re-searchers. In two others, departments pro-vided serial numbers from which we gen-erated the random samples; only then werewe provided names and contact informa-tion.

8. When the confidence interval ex-ceeds plus or minus 4 percent, we pro-vide the exact interval in the endnotes.

9. Because of the multistage samplingprocedure used in our study, we could notrely on standard estimates of standard er-rors or statistical significance. Adjusted stan-dard errors and observed significance lev-els were estimated using the statisticalanalysis program Sudaan (see Babubhai,Barnwell, and Bieler, 1997), after specify-ing the specific sampling model used inour study.

10. The weighting procedure was de-veloped by John Hall of Mathematica PolicyResearch Inc. The weights for the PoliceFoundation Survey account for differencesin (a) probabilities of selection among of-ficers responding to the survey, (b)nonresponse at the department level, and(c) response rates among groups ofofficers. Without the weighting adjust-ments, some groups of officers would beoverrepresented (and others under-represented), leading to potentially biasedsurvey estimates.

59

Police Foundation

Weighting took place in seven steps: (a)each sampled department was assigned aninitial weight equal to the inverse of itsprobability of selection; (b) cells wereformed for department-level nonresponseadjustment; (c) department-level non-response weights were computed; (d) eachsampled officer was assigned an initialweight, which was the product of theofficer’s department’s weight and the in-verse of the officer’s probability of selec-tion within the department; (e) new cellswere formed for officer-level nonresponseadjustments; (f) officer-level nonresponseweights were computed; and (g) eachofficer’s final weight was the product ofthe initial officer weight and the officer-level nonresponse weight.

Initial Department Weights: Initially weight-ing departments by the inverse of the prob-ability of selection was required becausedepartments were sampled with probabil-ity proportional to size. Thus the initialdepartment weight (IDW) is

IDW(dept) = 1/P(dept)

where P (dept) is the department’s prob-ability of selection.

When department-level nonresponseadjustments were made, the initial depart-ment weight allowed each department torepresent its appropriate share of thepopulation.

Department Nonresponse Adjustment: Onelarge department (selected with certaintyfor the sample survey) chose not to re-spond. Because of this, we defined onecell for department-level nonresponse toinclude all sampled departments withinthose departments having at least 400 full-time sworn officers (FTSW). Other cellswere defined by the intersection of regionand major stratum (selected with certainty,noncertainty with more than 24 FTSW and10–24 FTSW). Departments assigned to thefirst cell described above were not also as-signed to other cells. The departmentalnonresponse adjustment, DNRA (dcell), for

a cell is the ratio of the sum of IDW for alldepartments in the cell to the sum of IDWfor responding departments in the cell, andthe final department weight is

FDW(dept) = IDW(dept) x DNRA(dcell)

Each officer was then assigned an initialweight (IWO), where

IWO(officer) = FDW(dept) x 1/P(officer|dept)

where P (officer dept) is the probability ofan officer being selected for the samplewithin the department.

Officer Nonresponse Adjustment: Compu-tation of the officer nonresponse adjust-ment (DNRAO) was similar to that for de-partments, except the cells were defineddifferently. For adjustments at the individuallevel, one cell comprised four departmentsselected with certainty within a region. Onecell included three certainty departmentsin two neighboring regions. One cell com-prised a certainty selection and two otherlarge departments within a region. Eightother cells were defined by the intersec-tion of region and the two majornoncertainty strata.

ONRA (ocell) for a cell is the ratio of thesum of IWO (officer) for all sampled offic-ers in the cell to the sum of IWO (officer)for responding officers in the cell, and thefinal weight is

Finalwt(officer) = IWO(officer) x ONRA(ocell).

11. The survey instrument and re-sponses, including raw frequencies andweighted percentages, are provided inAppendix A. Throughout this report, un-less otherwise indicated, percentages pre-sented in the text are weighted percent-ages.

12. Officers could identify themselvesas belonging to more than one racial cat-egory.

13. For example, in their re-examina-tion of 5,688 cases in the 1977 Police Ser-vices Study data, Worden and Shepard

60


(1996) found that reasonable force wasused in 37 cases, and improper force wasused in 23 cases. We note that improperforce was thus used in 38 percent of en-counters that involved force. Similarly, inhis re-analysis of 1,565 cases in AlbertReiss’s 1967 data, Friedrich (1980) foundthat reasonable force was used in 52 cases,and excessive force was used in 28 cases.Excessive force was thus used in 35 per-cent of encounters that involved force.

14. These issues are revisited later,when we take up questions of differencesamong subgroups of officers and considerwhether police officers of different raceshave differing views of racial bias by po-lice officers.

15. We are beginning to examinewhether the influence of race might beexplained by other factors, such as theconcentration of minority police officers inspecific parts of the country. Our findingssuggest that the importance of race is main-tained even when controlling for other rel-evant demographic characteristics.

16. In Table 4.14, confidence intervalsranged from ±4.61 percent to ±13.43 per-cent for African Americans, and from ±5.86percent to ±13.74 percent for other minori-ties. We remind the reader that we reportconfidence intervals only if they are greaterthan ±4 percent.

17. Confidence intervals ranged from±5.86 percent to ±10.76 percent for Afri-can Americans and from ±9.8 percent to±11.19 percent for other minorities.

18. Confidence intervals ranged from±6.02 percent to ±10.94 percent for Afri-can Americans and from ±10.49 percent to±12.23 percent for other minorities.

19. For the number of incidents of ex-cessive force (Table 4.17), confidence in-tervals for white officers were ±4.12 per-cent for “decrease” and ±4.19 percent for“no impact.” For African-American officers,

confidence intervals were ±5.21 percent for“increases,” ±9.88 percent for “decreases,”and ±8.31 percent for “no impact.” Forother minority officers, confidence inter-vals were ±4.29 percent for “increases,”±11.37 percent for “decreases,” and ±11.76percent for “no impact.”

20. For Table 4.20, confidence intervalsrange from ±5.53 percent to ±5.84 percentfor supervisors.

21. For Table 4.21, confidence intervalsrange from ±5.88 percent to ±6.03 percentfor supervisors.

22. For Table 4.22, confidence intervalsrange from ±5.25 percent to ±6.50 percentfor supervisors

23. For Table 4.23, confidence intervalsfor supervisors ranged from ±4.98 percentto ±5.57 percent.



26. For Table 4.26, confidence intervalsfor supervisors were ±5.55 percent.

27. For Table 4.27, confidence intervalsfor supervisors were ±6.08 percent for “de-creases” and ±6.35 percent for “no impact.”For nonsupervisors, confidence intervalswere ±4.27 percent for “decreases” and±4.31 percent for “no impact.”

28. For Table 4.28, confidence intervalsfor supervisors were ±6.25 percent for “de-creases” and ±6.35 percent for “no impact.”For nonsupervisors, confidence intervalswere ±4.29 percent for “no impact.”

29. For Table 4.29, confidence intervalsfor the North Central region ranged from±4.50 percent to ±6.30 percent. For the

61

Police Foundation

Northeast they ranged from ±4.50 percentto ±5.70 percent. For the South they rangedfrom ±4.30 percent to ±5.70 percent, andfor the West they ranged from ±7.90 per-cent to ±8.00 percent.

30. For Table 4.30, confidence intervalsfor the North Central region were ±5.70percent. For the Northeast they were ±6.02percent. For the South they were ±6.31percent, and for the West they were ±6.31percent.

31. For Table 4.31, confidence intervalsfor the North Central region were ±8.57percent. For the Northeast they were ±5.88percent. For the South they were ±5.57percent, and for the West they were ±7.02percent.

32. In Table 4.32, confidence intervalsranged from ±5.00 percent to ±8.00 per-

cent for the largest departments and from±6.00 percent to ±8.00 percent for the smalldepartments.

33. In Table 4.33, confidence intervalsranged from ±5.50 percent to ±7.50 per-cent for the largest departments.

35. In Table 4.34, confidence intervalsranged from ±4.82 percent to ±7.93 per-cent for the largest departments and from±5.02 percent to ±11.56 percent for thesmall departments.

35. In Table 4.35, confidence intervalsranged from ±7.29 percent to ±8.02 per-cent for the largest departments, ±3.39 per-cent to ±4.25 percent for the mediumdepartments, and ±7.56 percent to ±7.80percent for the small departments.

62


REFERENCES

Adams, Kenneth. 1996. “Measuring thePrevalence of Police Abuse ofForce,” in Police Violence: Under-standing and Controlling PoliceAbuse of Force, ed. William A.Geller and Hans Toch. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Amendola, Karen, Cielle Hockman, andPeter Scharf. 1996. Assessing LawEnforcement Ethics: TechnicalReport on the Study Conductedwith the Oregon Department ofState Police. Washington, DC:Police Foundation.

Babbie, Earl. 1992. The Practice of SocialResearch, 6th ed. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

———. 1990. Survey Research Methods,2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Babubhai, Shai V., Beth G. Barnwell, andGayle S. Bieler. 1997. Sudaan Re-lease 7.5: User’s Manual. ResearchTriangle Park, NC: Research

Triangle Institute.

Bayley, David H., and Egon Bittner. 1984.“Learning the Skills of Policing.”Law and Society Review 30(3):585–606.

Bennett, Richard R. 1994. Royal BarbadosPolice Force Survey. (Not pub-lished.)

Black, Donald, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. 1970.“Police Control of Juveniles.”American Sociological Review 35:63–77.

Bureau of the Census. 1991. Census ofPopulation and Housing, 1990:Summary Tape File 3. Washington,DC: Bureau of the Census.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). 1995. LawEnforcement Management andAdministrative Statistics, 1993.Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Bureau of JusticeStatistics.

63

Police Foundation

Carter, David L., and Allen D. Sapp. 1990.“The Evolution of Higher Educa-tion in Law Enforcement: Prelimi-nary Findings From A NationalStudy.” Journal of Criminal JusticeEducation 1(1): 59–85.

Criminal Justice Commission. 1995. Ethi-cal Conduct and Discipline in theQueensland Police Service: TheViews of Recruits, First YearConstables, and ExperiencedOfficers. Brisbane, Australia:Criminal Justice Commission.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 1994.Crime in the United States:Uniform Crime Reports, 1993.Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Friedrich, Robert J. 1980. “Police Use ofForce: Individuals, Situations, andOrganizations.” The Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political andSocial Science 452 (November):82–97.

Grant, J. Douglas, and Joan Grant. 1996.“Officer Selection and the Preven-tion of Abuse of Force,” in PoliceViolence: Understanding andControlling Police Abuse of Force,ed. William A. Geller andHans Toch. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Goldstein, Herman. 1979. “ImprovingPolicing: A Problem-Oriented Ap-proach.” Crime and Delinquency25(2): 236–58.

Klinger, David A. 1996. “More on Demeanorand Arrest in Dade County.”Criminology 34(1): 61–82.

———. 1994. “Demeanor or Crime? Why‘Hostile’ Citizens Are More Likelyto Be Arrested.” Criminology 32(3):475–93.

Klockars, Carl B., Sanja Kutnjak-Ivkovic andWilliam E. Harver. (no date).Police Integrity Survey.

LeDoux, John C., and Robert R. Hazelwood.1985. “Police Attitudes and BeliefsToward Rape.” Journal of PoliceScience and Administration 13(3):211–21.

Lundman, Richard J. 1996. “Demeanor andArrest: Additional Evidence fromPreviously Unpublished Data.”Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 33(3): 306–53.

———. 1994. “Demeanor or Crime? TheMid-West City Police-CitizenEncounters Study.” Criminology32(4): 631–56.

Lundman, Richard, Richard E. Sykes, andJohn P. Clark. 1978. “Police Con-trol of Juveniles: A Replication.”Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 33: 306–353.

Maguire, Edward R. 1997. “The PoliceFoundation Use of Force Study:Sampling Frame Design Issues.”Memorandum prepared for thePolice Foundation, 20 October1997.

Maguire, Edward R., Jeffrey B. Snipes,Craig D. Uchida, and MargaretTownsend. 1998. “Counting Cops:Estimating the Number of PoliceDepts and Police Officers in theUSA” Policing: An InternationalJournal of Police Strategies andManagement. 21(1): 97–120.

Martin, Christine, and Peter B. Bensinger.1994. Illinois Municipal Officers’Perceptions of Police Ethics. Chi-cago: Illinois Criminal Justice In-formation Authority.

Mastrofski, Stephen D., Roger B. Parks,Christina DeJong, and Robert E.Worden. “Race and Every-Day Po-licing: A Research Perspective,”paper delivered at the Twelfth In-ternational Congress on Criminol-ogy, Seoul, Korea, August 24–28,1998: 14.

64


Maxfield, Michael G., and Earl Babbie.1995. Research Methods for Crimi-nal Justice and Criminology.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McConkey, Kevin M., Gail F. Huon, andMark G. Frank. 1996. Practical Eth-ics in the Police Service: Ethics andPolicing—Study 3. Payneham,South Australia: National PoliceResearch Unit.

McElroy, Jerome, Colleen A. Cosgrove, andSusan Sadd. 1990. CPOP: The Re-search, An Evaluative Study of theNew York City Community PatrolOfficer Program. New York: TheVera Institute of Justice.

National Advisory Commission on Crimi-nal Justice Standards and Goals.1973. The Police. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Women and Policing.[electronic bulletin board]; [cited13 April 1998]; available from(www. femin i s t .o rg/po l i ce/ncwpAbout.html); INTERNET.

Ogletree, Charles J. Jr., Mary Prosser, AbbeSmith, and William Talley Jr. 1995.Beyond the Rodney King Story: AnInvestigation of Police Misconductin Minority Communities. Boston:Northeastern University Press.

Pate, Antony M., and Edwin E. Hamilton.1992. The New York City Police Ca-det Corps Technical Report. Wash-ington, DC: Police Foundation.

Pate, Antony M., and Lorie A. Fridell. 1993.Police Use of Force: Official Re-ports, Citizen Complaints, and Le-gal Consequences. Washington,DC: Police Foundation.

Reiss, Albert J. Jr. 1971. The Police andthe Public. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Scrivner, Ellen M. 1994. The Role of PolicePsychology in Controlling Exces-sive Force. Washington, DC: USDepartment of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, National Instituteof Justice.

Skolnick, Jerome H., and David H. Bayley.1986. The New Blue Line: PoliceInnovation in Six American Cit-ies. New York: The Free Press.

Skolnick, Jerome H. 1999. On DemocraticPolicing. Ideas in American Polic-ing series. Washington, DC: PoliceFoundation.

Skolnick, Jerome H., and James J. Fyfe.1993. Above the Law: Police andthe Excessive Use of Force. NewYork: The Free Press.

Smith, Douglas A., and Christy A. Visher.1981. “Street-Level Justice:Situational Determinants of PoliceArrest Decisions.” Social Problems29(2): 167–77.

Smith, Douglas A., Christy A. Visher, and LauraA. Davidson. 1984. “Equity and Dis-cretionary Justice: The Influence ofRace on Police Arrest Decisions.” Jour-nal of Criminal Law and Criminol-ogy 75(1): 234–49.

Travis, Jeremy. 1995. “Education in LawEnforcement: Beyond the CollegeDegree.” Criminal Justice of theAmericas 8: 1–6.

Trojanowicz, Robert, and BonnieBucqueroux. 1994. CommunityPolicing: How to Get Started. Cin-cinnati: Anderson Publishing.

Tonry, Michael. 1995. Malign Neglect—Race, Crime, and Punishment inAmerica. New York: OxfordUniversity Press. p. 71.

Walker, Samuel, Cassia Spohn, and MiriamDeLone. 1996. The Color of Justice:Race, Ethnicity, and Crime inAmerica. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

65

Police Foundation

Weisburd, David. 1998. Statistics in Crimi-nal Justice. New York: Wadsworth.

Weisburd, David, Jerome McElroy,and Patricia Hardyman. 1988.“Challenges to Supervision inCommunity Policing: Observationson a Pilot Project.” AmericanJournal of Police, 7(2): 29–50.

Westley, William A. 1953. “Violence andthe Police.” American Journal ofSociology, 59: 34–41.

Worden, Robert E. 1990. “A Badge and aBaccalaureate: Policies, Hypotheses,and Further Evidence.” JusticeQuarterly 7(3): 565–92.

Worden, Robert E. 1996. “The ‘Causes’ ofPolice Brutality: Theory andEvidence on Police Use of Force”in Police Violence: Understandingand Controlling Police Abuse ofForce. Ed. William A. Geller andHans Toch. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Worden, Robert E., and Robin L. Shepard.1996. “Demeanor, Crime, and Po-lice Behavior: A Reexamination ofthe Police Services Study Data.”Criminology 34(1): 83–105.

Wycoff, Mary Ann, and Timothy N.Oettmeier. 1993. Evaluating PatrolOfficer Per formance UnderCommunity Policing: The HoustonExperience. Washington, DC:Police Foundation.

66


AUTHORS

David Weisburd, PhD, is Senior Fellow,

and formerly Senior Research Scientist, at

the Police Foundation. He also is a profes-

sor of criminology at the Hebrew Univer-

sity Law School in Jerusalem, and a Senior

Research Fellow in the Department of

Criminology and Criminal Justice at the Uni-

versity of Maryland, College Park.

Rosann Greenspan, PhD, formerly research

director at the Police Foundation, is Assis-

tant Director and Visiting Scholar at the Cen-

ter for the Study of Law and Society at the

University of California at Berkeley, where

she also teaches in the Legal Studies Pro-

gram. Dr. Greenspan continues to collabo-

rate on foundation research projects.

Edwin E. Hamilton, MA, is Senior Research

Analyst at the Police Foundation. Since com-

ing to the Police Foundation in 1983, Mr.

Hamilton has worked on dozens of

foundation research projects, and co-authored

several foundation research reports.

Kellie A. Bryant, MS, formerly a research

associate at the Police Foundation, is a

Deputy Marshal with the United States

Marshals Service.

Hubert Williams, JD, has been President

of the Police Foundation since 1985. In

1962, he joined the Newark, New Jersey,

Police Department, was later promoted to

sergeant, then lieutenant, and was granted

a leave of absence from 1972 to 1974 to

direct the Newark High Impact Anti-Crime

Initiative. In 1974, Williams was selected to

head the Newark Police Department, and

served as its director until 1985. During his

career with the Newark Police Department,

Williams’s assignments included undercover

narcotics, patrol, field operations, commu-

nity relations, and the office of the chief.

Police Foundation

1

A

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

WITH RESPONSES

2

Survey

Section A: Policing IssuesThis section of the questionnaire examines a broad range of issues related

to police authority and community policing. Respondents indicate a level

of agreement with a series of statements.Raw WeightedFrequency Percentage

1

a1 First, are you a full-time sworn officer in the [fill DEPT]?Yes 925 100No

N = 925

a2 The relationship between the police and the citizens in [fill CITY]is very good.Strongly Agree 179 18.7Agree 634 69.4Disagree 92 9.9Strongly Disagree 18 2.1

N = 923

a3 Most people do not respect the police.Strongly Agree 52 5.6Agree 172 19.1Disagree 604 65.2Strongly Disagree 96 10.1

N = 924

SURVEY

Police Foundation

3

a4 Police officers are not permitted to use as much force as is oftennecessary in making arrests.

Strongly Agree 56 6.2

Agree 225 24.9

Disagree 554 60.5

Strongly Disagree 77 8.4

N = 912

a5 Police officers should be allowed to use physical forcein response to verbal abuse.


Agree 60 6.6

Disagree 618 67.6


N = 920

a6 A police officer is more likely to arrest a person who displayswhat he or she considers to be a bad attitude.


Agree 434 46.7

Disagree 408 45.1


N = 917

a7 Citizen review boards are effective means for preventing policemisconduct.


Agree 296 34.7

Disagree 423 48.4


N = 872

a8 It is sometimes acceptable to use more force than is legallyallowable to control someone who physically assaults an officer.


Agree 191 21.2

Disagree 506 55.2


N = 912

Raw WeightedFrequency Percentage

1

4

Survey

a9 An officer who makes many arrests will get many citizen complaints.


Agree 427 46.6

Disagree 355 38.5


N = 919

a10 Police officers regularly use more physical force than is necessaryin making arrests.


Agree 31 3.5

Disagree 596 64.5


N = 924

a11 Whistle blowing is not worth it.


Agree 196 21.8

Disagree 573 63.5


N = 904

a12 Investigations of police misconduct are usually biasedin favor of police.


Agree 48 5.1

Disagree 664 72.4


N = 914

a13 Preservation of the peace requires that police have the authorityto order people to “move along” or “break it up” even thoughno law is being violated.


Agree 585 63.4

Disagree 218 24.4


N = 917


1

Police Foundation

5


1

a14 Police officers often treat whites better than they do AfricanAmericans and other minorities.


Agree 144 15.8

Disagree 523 57.8


N = 914

a15 Police department rules about the use of force should not beany stricter than required by law.


Agree 542 58.9

Disagree 293 32.3


N = 915

a16 African Americans and other minorities are much less likelyto cooperate with the police than are whites.


Agree 215 23.8

Disagree 570 63.0


N = 907

a17 An officer who reports another officer’s misconduct is likely to begiven the “cold shoulder” by his or her fellow officers.


Agree 515 56.4

Disagree 277 30.9


N = 908

a18 Internal affairs units are not effective means for preventing policemisconduct.


Agree 172 19.0

Disagree 601 66.2


N = 910

6

Survey


1

a19 Always following the rules is not compatible with gettingthe job done.


Agree 360 39.1

Disagree 453 49.6


N = 919

a20 It is not unusual for a police officer to turn a blind eye to improperconduct by other officers.


Agree 460 50.6

Disagree 393 43.3


N = 908

a21 Police administrators concentrate on what police officersdo wrong rather than what police officers do right.


Agree 437 47.1

Disagree 287 31.2


N = 920

a22 Your police department takes a very tough stance on improperbehavior by police.


Agree 532 57.4

Disagree 56 6.6


N = 921

a23 The code of silence is an essential part of the mutual trustnecessary to good policing.


Agree 141 15.7

Disagree 595 65.6


N = 905

Police Foundation

7

a24 Police officers always report serious criminal violations involvingabuse of authority by fellow officers.


Agree 320 36.2

Disagree 530 58.5


N = 899

a25 Police officers in [fill CITY] use more force than necessaryto make an arrest.

Always 2 0.3

Often 6 0.7

Sometimes 188 20.8

Seldom 581 62.4

Never 145 16.0

N = 922

a26 Police officers in your department respond to verbal abusewith physical force.

Always 2 0.3

Often 5 0.6

Sometimes 130 13.9

Seldom 497 53.5

Never 288 31.8

N = 922

a27 The public is too concerned with police brutality.


Agree 381 41.6

Disagree 388 42.5


N = 918

a28 The newspapers and TV in this country are too concernedwith police brutality.


Agree 407 44.2

Disagree 173 19.0


N = 920


1

8

Survey


1

a29 Police should make frequent informal contact with peopleon their beat.


Agree 380 42.0

Disagree 11 1.2


N = 921

a30 Police should work with citizens to try and solve problemson their beat.


Agree 315 34.3

Disagree 4 0.4


N = 924

a31 Citizens can be a vital source of information about the problemsin their neighborhood.


Agree 189 20.7

Disagree 1 0.1


N = 924

a32 Police officers sometimes have to explain to individuals andgroups of citizens that the police are prohibited by law fromusing some of the tactics that citizens encourage them to use.


Agree 584 63.9

Disagree 27 3.0


N = 914

a33 It is okay for police officers to use more aggressive tacticsthan they otherwise would use if the community has askedthem to do so.


Agree 183 19.7

Disagree 586 64.2


N = 919

Police Foundation

9

a34 Frequent friendly contact with local residents and merchantsincreases the likelihood that police officers will accept freelunches, discounts, or gifts of appreciation for effective service.


Agree 178 18.8

Disagree 547 60.4


N = 916

a35 Police officers are more likely to use physical force against blacksand other minorities than against whites in similar situations.


Agree 85 9.4

Disagree 506 55.6


N = 916

a36 Police officers are more likely to use physical force against poorpeople than against middle-class people in similar situations.


Agree 110 12.2

Disagree 526 57.9


N = 918

a37 Most police abuse of force could be stopped by developingmore effective methods of supervision.


Agree 440 48.0

Disagree 361 39.5


N = 913

a38 Good first-line supervisors can help prevent police officers fromabusing their authority.


Agree 614 66.9

Disagree 88 9.3


N = 921


1

10

Survey

a39 If a police chief takes a strong position against abuses of authority,he or she can make a big difference in preventing officers fromabusing their authority.


Agree 557 60.3

Disagree 126 13.8


N = 920

a40 Serious cases of police misconduct like the Rodney King casein Los Angeles or the Abner Louima allegation in New York areextremely rare in your department.


Agree 290 32.4

Disagree 20 2.3


N = 917


1

Police Foundation

11

Section B: Police Response to Citizen BehaviorIn this section, we present two scenarios for the respondent’s reaction. A

series of questions follows each scenario. Again, we are seeking the

respondent’s opinions. Answers to these questions do not imply that the

respondent has either participated in or is aware of any such incidents in

his/her department.

Note: There are two versions of the first scenario. The computer randomly

selected which version was presented. Approximately half of the respon-

dents were read Version A and the other half were read Version B. We did

not provide further information about the scenario. The respondents used

only the information we read.

First Scenario, Version A

While patrolling his beat, an officer notices several youths standing on a

corner smoking cigarettes and talking to one another. The officer tells the

youths to break it up and leave the area. The youths say, “We’re not doing

anything. Why are you hassling us?”. The officer gets out of the car and

orders the youths to place their hands up against the wall of a building.

They refuse. The officer throws them against the wall and searches them.

Finding nothing, the officer uses demeaning language, tells them that this

“will teach you to respect the law” and “I’d better not see you here again,”

and gets in his patrol car and drives off.

12

Survey

b1-a How serious do you consider the officer’s behavior to be?

Not Serious at All 8 1.8

Not Very Serious 35 7.9

Moderately Serious 110 24.8

Quite Serious 157 35.2

Very Serious 128 30.3

N = 438

b1-b How serious would most officers in your agency considerthis behavior to be?






N = 434

b1-c If an officer in your agency engaged in this behavior and wasreported, what, if any, discipline do you think would follow?

No Discipline 13 3.1

Verbal Reprimand 151 34.3

Written Reprimand 150 34.2

Suspension Without Pay 73 16.6

Demotion in Rank 3 0.7

Dismissal 3 0.6

Something Else 45 10.5

N = 438

b1-d If an officer in your agency engaged in this behavior and wasreported, what, if any, discipline do you think should follow?






Dismissal 3 0.7


N = 435


1

Police Foundation

13

b1-e Do you think you would report a fellow officer who engagedin this behavior?

Definitely Not 36 8.5

Probably Not 124 28.2

Possibly Yes 126 28.8

Definitely Yes 148 34.6

N = 434

b1-f Do you think most officers in your agency would report a fellowofficer who engaged in this behavior?





N = 435

First Scenario, Version B

In a community meeting, citizens told police that they were very con-

cerned about groups of rowdy youths hanging out on street corners. After

the meeting, an officer who participated in the meeting notices several

youths standing on a corner smoking cigarettes and talking to one another.

The officer tells the youths to break it up and leave the area. The youths

say, “We’re not doing anything. Why are you hassling us?”. The officer gets

out of the car and orders the youths to place their hands up against the

wall of a building. They refuse. The officer throws them against the wall,

and searches them. Finding nothing, the officer uses demeaning language,

tells them that this “will teach you to respect the law” and “I’d better not

see you here again,” and gets in his patrol car and drives off.Raw WeightedFrequency Percentage

1







N = 482


1

14

Survey

b2-b How serious would most officers in your agency consider thisbehavior to be?






N =473







Dismissal 5 1.0


N = 477


No Discipline 7 1.6





Dismissal 9 1.7


N = 479






N = 478


1

Police Foundation

15






N = 473

Second ScenarioAn officer has a handcuffed suspect sitting at his desk while he fills out thenecessary paperwork. With no provocation from the officer, the suspectsuddenly spits in the face of the officer. The officer immediately pushes thesuspect in the face, causing the suspect to fall from the chair onto the floor.


1







N = 914

b3-b How serious would most officers in your agency considerthis behavior to be?





Very Serious 68 7.9

N = 907







Dismissal 11 1.2Something Else 68 7.2

N = 911


1

16

Survey







Dismissal 8 0.9


N = 910






N = 914






N = 908


1

Police Foundation

17

Section C: The Impact of Community-Oriented PolicingIn this section, we examine the officer’s familiarity with and experience

with community policing.Raw WeightedFrequency Percentage

1

c1 Are you familiar with the concept of community-oriented policing?

Yes 909 98.4

No 14 1.6

N = 923

c2 Is your department involved in community-oriented policing?

Yes 858 94.8

No 49 5.2

N = 907

c3 Does your department have a separate community policing unitor units, or is community policing implemented department-wide?

Community Policing Unit 367 43.5

Community Policing Department-Wide 483 56.5

N = 850

18

Survey

c4 In your current assignment, are you involved in community-oriented policing?

Yes 471 54.6No 386 45.4

N = 857

c5 In previous assignments, have you been involved in community-oriented policing?

Yes 471 56.8No 364 43.2

N = 835

c6 Do you think that community policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the number of incidents of excessive force?

Increases 17 2.0Decreases 450 50.9Has No Impact 418 47.1

N = 885

c7 Do you think that community policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the seriousness of excessive force incidents?

Increases 32 3.4Decreases 373 42.2Has No Impact 479 54.4

N = 884

c8 Do you think that community policing increases, decreases,or has no impact on the risk of corrupt behavior?

Increases the Risk 63 7.1Decreases the Risk 316 35.8Has No Impact 504 57.1

N = 883

c9 Community policing requires police officers to wear too many hats.

Strongly Agree 42 4.4Agree 241 26.5Disagree 542 60.6Strongly Disagree 76 8.4

N = 901

c10 It is more difficult to supervise officers in community policingthan in other types of units.

Strongly Agree 21 2.3Agree 190 20.5Disagree 592 67.3Strongly Disagree 89 9.9N = 892


1

Police Foundation

19

Section D: Police Officer InformationIn this section, we determine characteristics of the respondent to enable usto describe the officers included in the study. This information will help uscategorize the respondents.


1

d1 How long have you been a sworn police officer?

5 Years or Less 235 25.76–10 Years 182 20.011–15 Years 169 18.316–20 Years 154 16.821–38 Years 184 19.2

N = 924

d2 What is your current rank?Patrol Officer 514 55.7Detective Criminal Investigator 110 12.0Corporal 36 4.0Sergeant 142 15.3Lieutenant 56 6.1Captain 17 1.7Inspector 2 0.2Major 3 0.3Deputy Chief 6 0.6Chief 14 1.5Other 24 2.4

N = 924

20

Survey

d3 How long have you held that rank?

5 Years or Less 236 58.36–10 Years 106 25.311 or More Years 68 16.5

N = 410

d4 Are you a supervisor?Yes 140 34.4No 270 65.6

N = 410

d4a How many officers do you supervise?1–6 86 32.37–10 48 17.611–20 79 29.821–350 55 20.2

N = 268

d5 How many years have you been with your current departmentas a sworn police officer?5 Years or Less 288 31.46–10 Years 184 20.211–15 Years 156 16.916–35 Years 296 31.5

N = 924

d6 What is your current assignment?Patrol 534 59.9Community Policing 60 7.4Narcotics 8 1.0Juvenile 8 1.1Gang 34 4.0Swat 9 1.2Vice 7 0.9Other Special Operations 106 12.1Internal Affairs 5 0.6Communications 2 0.3Technical Support 12 1.5Administration 68 7.7Other Non-Field Assignment 11 1.6Other Field Assignment 8 0.9

N = 872


1

Police Foundation

21

d7 How long have you had your current assignment?

5 Years or Less 662 72.56–10 Years 158 16.811–21 Years 103 10.7

N = 923

d8 Do you work with a partner?Yes 241 27.4No 683 72.6

N = 924

d8a How long have you worked with your partner?1 Year or Less 148 62.92–5 Years 62 26.26–10 Years 16 7.011–21 Years 9 3.9

N = 235

d9 Which of the following best reflects your normal working hours?Day Shifts 355 38.5Afternoon and Evening Shifts 164 18.1Night Shifts 199 21.2Something Else 206 22.3

N = 924

d9a If something else, would it be . . .

Flexible Hours 37 18.7

Specific Rotating Shifts 161 77.4

Some Other Arrangement 8 3.8

N = 206

d10 How many hours per week do you usually work in your jobas a police officer, including regular overtime hours?

40 Hours or Less 307 33.5

41–45 Hours 258 28.0

46–49 Hours 227 24.3

50–80 Hours 131 14.2

N = 923


1

22

Survey

d11 Do you work an off-duty job?

Yes 267 28.6No 657 71.4

N = 924

d11-a How many hours per week do you usually work while off duty?1–10 Hours 143 55.312–20 Hours 90 34.324–48 Hours 90 10.4

N = 262

d12 What is the highest level of school that you’ve completed?Some High School 5 0.5High School Graduate/GED 133 14.7Some College 303 33.1Associate’s (2-Year) Degree 174 18.6Bachelor’s (4-Year) Degree 258 27.6Some Graduate or Professional School 19 2.0Master’s Degree 29 3.2Doctoral Degree, Law Degree, Ed.D. 3 0.3

N = 924

d13 What was your major in college?2

Agriculture 1 0.1Biology/Life Sciences 11 1.4Business 96 12.4Communications 18 2.3Computer Science 10 1.3Criminology/Criminal Justice/Police Science 409 52.8Forensics 1 0.1Education 31 4.0Engineering 11 1.4Language/Literature 2 0.3Health Sciences 14 1.8Law/Prelaw/Legal Studies 20 2.6Mathematics 6 0.8Philosophy/Religion 4 0.5Physical Sciences 7 0.9Psychology 28 3.6Social Work 3 0.4Social Science/History 20 2.6Visual Arts, Theater, Music 8 1.0Public Policy 9 1.2Other Science 8 1.0Other Liberal Arts 28 3.6Other 59 7.6

N = 775


1

Police Foundation

23

d14 What was your major in graduate school?3

Business 4 7.8

Criminology/Criminal Justice/Police Science 14 27.5

Education 5 9.8

Health Sciences 1 2.0

Law/Legal Studies 3 5.9

Psychology 3 5.9

Social Work 2 3.9

Social Science/History 1 2.0

Public Policy 15 29.4

Other Science 2 3.9

Other Liberal Arts 1 2.0

Other 3 5.9

N = 51

d15 What level of education did you complete before becominga police officer?

Some High School 8 1.0

High School Graduate/GED 164 20.6

Some College 261 33.8

Associate’s (2-Year) Degree 135 17.1

Bachelor’s (4-Year) Degree 205 25.9

Some Graduate or Professional School 3 0.4

Master’s Degree 10 1.2

Doctoral Degree, Law Degree, Ed.D. 0 0.0

N = 786

d16 Are you currently taking any college or graduate courses in pursuit of a degree?

Yes 140 15.4

No 784 84.6

N = 924

d17 In your academy training or since becoming a police officer,have you taken any classes in interpersonal skills or interpersonalrelations?

Yes 682 73.8

No 237 26.2

N = 919


1

24

Survey

d17a Do you think this training is effective in preventing abuseof authority?

Yes 544 80.3

No 130 19.7

N = 674

d18 In your academy training or since becoming a police officer,have you taken any classes in human diversity, cultural differences,cultural awareness, or ethnic sensitivity?

Yes 812 88.0

No 111 12.0

N = 923


Yes 603 74.9

No 204 25.1

N = 807

d19 In your academy training or since becoming a police officer,have you taken any separate courses in ethics in law enforcement?

Yes 579 63.2

No 338 36.8

N = 917


Yes 472 82.2

No 104 17.8

N = 576

d20 Considering all aspects of the job, are you satisfied or dissatisfiedwith your current assignment?

Satisfied 845 91.5

Dissatisfied 78 8.5

N = 923


1

Police Foundation

25

d20a Would you say you are extremely satisfied, mostly satisfied,

or somewhat satisfied?

Extremely Satisfied 333 39.6

Mostly Satisfied 395 46.4

Somewhat Satisfied 115 14.0

N = 843

d20b Would you say you are extremely dissatisfied, mostly dissatisfied,or somewhat dissatisfied?

Extremely Dissatisfied 18 23.3

Mostly Dissatisfied 24 30.5

Somewhat Dissatisfied 36 46.2

N = 78

d21 Looking at your overall work as a police officer, are you satisfiedor dissatisfied with your career choice?

Satisfied 871 94.4

Dissatisfied 52 5.6

N = 923

d21a Would you say you are extremely satisfied, mostly satisfied,or somewhat satisfied?

Extremely Satisfied 468 54.3

Mostly Satisfied 342 38.6

Somewhat Satisfied 61 7.0

N = 871

d21b Would you say you are extremely dissatisfied, mostly dissatisfied,or somewhat dissatisfied?

Extremely Dissatisfied 2 4.1

Mostly Dissatisfied 22 41.4

Somewhat Dissatisfied 28 54.5

N = 52


1

26

Survey

d22 How stressful do you consider your work to be? Would you sayextremely stressful, quite stressful, somewhat stressful,not very stressful, or not at all stressful?

Extremely Stressful 145 15.5

Quite Stressful 274 29.6

Somewhat Stressful 392 42.5

Not Very Stressful 93 10.4

Not at All Stressful 18 2.0

N = 924

d23 How old are you?

22–25 Years 54 5.6

26–30 Years 151 16.6

31–35 Years 220 24.2

36–40 Years 176 19.2

41–45 Years 136 15.1

46–50 Years 103 10.6

51–55 Years 55 5.9

56–66 Years 27 2.8

N = 922

d24 Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

Yes 84 9.6

No 838 90.4

N = 922

d25 What is your racial background? Are you …

White 748 80.8

Black or African American 94 10.7

American Indian or Alaskan Native 8 0.8

Asian 8 0.8

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 3 0.3

Other 36 4.3

Mixed Race 24 2.4

N = 921


1

Police Foundation

27

d26 Including yourself, how many people usually live in yourhousehold? Please include children and infants and peoplenot related to you.

1 118 12.5

2 238 25.6

3 221 24.9

4 216 23.5

5 or More 127 13.5

N = 920

d27 How many children do you have who are under 18 that aredependent on you?

1 212 23.6

2 202 21.8

3 or More 109 11.6

None 397 42.9

N = 920

d28 How many children or other dependents do you supportwho are 18 or older?

1 146 15.8

2 31 3.3

3 or More 13 1.3

None 730 79.7

N = 920

d29 Are you now …

Married 647 69.6

Living With Someone as Married 35 4.0

Widowed 3 0.4

Divorced 87 9.7

Separated 23 2.5

Never Been Married 127 14.0

N = 922


1

28

Survey

d30 Code Without Asking: Respondent Is …

Male 848 91.5

Female 76 8.5

N = 924

Thank you for your time. You have made an important contribution towardour understanding of police views of authority and community policing.


1

1. For a detailed explanation of the weighting procedure, see endnote 10 onpage 193.

2. Multiple responses were allowed for this question; therefore, while the N ofrespondents was 775, the total number of responses was 804. Because of themultiple responses, percentages do not add up to 100 percent, and noweighted percentages are available.

3. Multiple responses were allowed for this question; therefore, while the N ofrespondents was 51, the total number of responses was 54. Because of themultiple responses, percentages do not add up to 100 percent, and noweighted percentages are available.

Police Foundation

1

APPENDIX B

REPORT ON FOCUS GROUP

OF POLICE SCHOLARS

AND EXECUTIVES

OCTOBER 15, 1997

Rosann Greenspan

David Weisburd

Kellie A. Bryant

2

Police Scholars and Executives

ContentsIntroduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

Defining Issues of Police Authority: The Boundaries

of the Proper Use of Authority .......................................................................................... 4

Abuse of Authority and Community Policing................................................................... 8

The Use of Civil Law to Address Crime Problems:The Local Context of Community Policing 9

The Changing Role of Supervisors UnderCommunity Policing 11

The Impact of Community Demands and Expectations 13

The Closer Community–Police Relationship and

the Potential for Corruption 15

Societal Factors That Affect Abuse of Authority ............................................................. 20

Incivility and Cultural Differences as Influenceson Abuse of Authority 20

The Effect of Race on Police–Citizen Interactions 22

High-Crime Areas and Officer Perceptionsand Behavior 23

The Effect of Neighborhood Income Levels

on Interactions with Police 23

Possible Solutions: Promoting “Good Policing” ............................................................. 26

Cultivating “Good Policing” Skills 27

Standards of “Good Policing” 27

Methods of Rewards and Recognition 28

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 30

Police Foundation

3

Introduction1

On October 15, 1997, a group of eminent

scholars and police chiefs gathered in the

conference room of the Police Foundation

in Washington, D.C., for a full day of dis-

cussion exploring management, legal, and

ethical questions relating to police abuse

of authority. This expert focus group was

asked to identify key issues, to explore

possible causes underlying police abuse of

authority and police brutality, to suggest

potential actions that police departments

could take to prevent abuses, and to con-

sider the potential effects that the commu-

nity policing movement has had on such

issues. For example, does community po-

licing increase the risks of police abuses

of authority or decrease them? Does it

change the nature of such abuses or not

affect them at all? The panel was also asked

to provide ideas to assist in the develop-

ment of a questionnaire for use in our na-

tional survey of police officers.

In identifying participants, the principal

investigators drew on their knowledge of

the field and consulted several scholars and

police executives to provide lists of lead-

ing academic and police executive experts

on issues of police authority, community

policing, race, and the law. Scholars in at-

tendance were Professor Carl Klockars

from the University of Delaware, Profes-

sor Peter Manning from Michigan State Uni-

versity, Professor Ramiro Martinez from the

University of Delaware, Professor Stephen

Mastrofski from Michigan State University,

Professor Jerome Skolnick from New York

University Law School, Professor Alfred

Slocum from Rutgers University School of

Law, and Professor Robert Worden from

the State University of New York at Albany.

Police executives included Commis-

sioner Thomas Frazier of Baltimore, Mary-

land; Chief Jerry Oliver of Richmond,

Virginia; Director Bob Pugh of Atlantic City,

B

POLICE SCHOLARS

AND EXECUTIVES

…[The] group

was asked to

identify…

causes

underlying

police abuse,…

to suggest

potential

actions,…

and to

consider the…

effects [of]

community

policing.

4


New Jersey; and Chief Jerry Sanders of San

Diego, California. Hubert Williams, presi-

dent of the Police Foundation, greeted the

guests and participated in the discussions.

Dr. Rosann Greenspan presided.

Defining Issues of PoliceAuthority: The Boundaries of theProper Use of AuthorityThe first set of issues concerned the defi-

nition of abuse of authority. What are the

boundaries of proper use of authority? Are

our ideas about the meaning and bound-

aries of police authority changing? What

forms of abuse concern the participants?

How extensive is the problem? Is abuse an

inevitable by-product of increased efforts

to control crime and disorder?

As participants debated the boundaries of

police authority, they considered whether

the meaning of abuse of authority should

be limited to matters related to the use of

force. Some argued that corruption and

unprofessional conduct more generally

were important concerns that should fall

within the definition. Police chiefs identi-

fied a wide range of unethical behavior by

police officers—from language to corrup-

tion to brutality—as matters of concern to

police executives. How to formulate a defi-

nition of abuse of authority was discussed

not only in terms of which specific acts

should be included, but also in terms of

the sources for the standards and criteria

that should define the scope of proper use

of police authority.

Professor Skolnick led off the discussion

by suggesting that because the media fo-

cus attention on incidents of “police bru-

tality,” it may be appropriate to focus our

attention on police brutality. He raised the

hope that this project could serve “to

inform the public about how difficult an

issue this is. I think most of the public don’t

really understand what the lines are with

respect to police use of force, and that

police are authorized to use force. The

question is, when?” Skolnick suggested that

one way to structure thinking about the

boundaries of police authority would be,

on the one hand, “the use of force in ap-

prehending somebody who is considered

to have committed a crime” and, on the

other hand, the use of force after some-

body has been apprehended. He pointed

out that “this [difference] is really what dis-

tinguished in a way the Rodney King case

and the Abner Louima case.”

Skolnick pointed out that “it is true that

police are authorized to, and sometimes

have to, use force in order to apprehend a

suspect, and sometimes police are autho-

rized to and have to use deadly force.” He

then offered a provocative suggestion:

Then I suggest to you that we cross a

line. And the line is now you have a

suspect who is in custody and who is

under control, is immobilized….I want

to suggest to you that there is never a

reason to use force there. [There] might

be [a] question as to whether working

police officers can really understand

that line.

Professor Klockars argued that “the blan-

ket statement that no force is justifiable at

that point is probably a little strong,” and

Commissioner Frazier suggested that first,

“[t]hey have to be compliant. Then, of

course, there is no justification.”

Chief Oliver recalled a difficult situation in

his department that involved the use of

force when a suspect was in custody and

handcuffed:

“…[M]ost

of the public

don’t really

understand

what the

lines are with

respect

to police use

of force,

and that

police are

authorized

to use force.

The question

is, when?”

Police Foundation

5

I can think of a situation that I’ve dealt

with where someone was in custody

and immobilized. Force was used as a

reaction on that person….[I]t was cer-

tainly looked at from a disciplinary

standpoint….[A]n officer was talking to

an individual who was under arrest in

handcuffs sitting next to him, and the

person cleared his throat and spit in

the officer’s face. And then the officer’s

reaction was to immediately push that

person away, and that’s a situation

where force was used. It was video-

taped. We looked at that. If you just

took that clip of the videotape of a per-

son turning and pushing somebody

that’s already handcuffed, [it could ap-

pear as though that officer used unnec-

essary force or abused (his) authority].

Professor Skolnick pointed out that in the

Abner Louima case—even before the al-

leged events at the precinct headquarters—

“There were four officers who were being

accused of taking this guy [who is under

arrest] out of the police car, beating him

up, and putting him back in the police car

…beating him up to beat him up, to teach

him some lesson.” He suggested the dis-

cussion implied that it may be valuable to

ask officers in our survey, “What are the

occasions under which it might be pos-

sible to use force after somebody has been

arrested? And if somebody spits in your

face, what can you do? If somebody in-

sults you, what can you do?”

Commissioner Frazier raised the interest-

ing question, “Do you have an obligation

to submit to illegal arrest…?” He suggested

that “the definition needs to be written, and

has to do with were you legally arrested

and were you under obligation to submit

and was the force…used…necessary or un-

necessary?” He recalled that a turning point

for him in the Rodney King trial was when

it was stated that officers had been trained

in the legal limits of the use of force:

…in the Rodney King trial, the one clip

that I’ll never forget was the federal

prosecutor being asked, “What do you

tell Los Angeles police officers about

the use of force?” And he said, “You

can use whatever force is necessary and

not one iota more.” That, I think, was

the key. I mean, just because you use

force doesn’t necessarily mean there is

anything wrong. But the line is more

than is necessary to accomplish a legal

end.

Professor Mastrofski suggested that a num-

ber of ways exist to approach the issue of

defining abuse of authority. One way

would be to use a legal definition: “We

can, as a definition, just say that abuse of

authority by definition will be only legal.

That is, whatever the law sets forth—what-

ever case law and statutory law set forth—

we can say that constitutes abuse of

authority.”

But he went on to suggest, “There is this

other issue of bad policing or ineffective

or not the best policing. And does that

constitute abuse of authority?”

Mr. Williams responded to Mastrofski’s

question, “[P]olicy I would think is…one

of the critical issues that has to be exam-

ined and not just the law.”

Professor Manning added yet another

consideration:

[W]e know from public opinion polls

that there are enormous differences by

race and ethnicity around what is

“…[J]ust

because you

use force

doesn’t

necessarily

mean there

is anything

wrong. But the

line is more

than is

necessary to

accomplish

a legal end.”

6


legitimate use of force. So clearly from

the point of view of the attitudes of the

public or public legitimacy of the po-

lice, it’s very important to look at what

is defined as appropriate by the public

as well as legal or state statutes.

Professor Mastrofski summarized the dis-

cussion as follows: “That really raises three

possible standards—legal, professional, and

…legitimacy of a larger society.”

Returning to Commissioner Frazier’s point

about the importance of the citizen’s com-

pliance in determining the appropriate use

of force, Professor Manning pointed out

that the process is interactive, and that the

police do not act alone:

[I]f we take some of the Weberian defi-

nition of authority—that is when the

compliance and deference to com-

mand—and we recognize that the po-

lice have the capacity to coerce that

compliance up to [and] including fatal

force, that makes the process interac-

tive to some degree.…I think it’s im-

portant to recognize that authority is

an issue of negotiated acceptance of

command, and [it] can raise quite a

span.

Professor Klockars argued for a more ex-

pansive definition of abuse of authority and

for the inclusion of the officer’s motive as

an aspect of the definition:

We have, in the discussions so far, fo-

cused on only one very special type of

abuse of authority, namely abuse of

force.…[T]here [is] a whole range of

abuses of authority, and the motives are

often extraordinarily different. It’s one

thing to be motivated by gain or

corruption; it’s another thing to be

motivated by an attempt to get that guy

off the street. It’s another thing to be

motivated by an attempt to pay back

somebody who spit in your face.…It’s

also not clear…that the most serious

forms of abuse involve the use of force.

It seems to me that fraudulent testi-

mony, which results in somebody be-

ing put in jail unjustly. I mean, if I have

a choice of getting punched in the nose

or sent to jail for a year or so wrongly,

I’d take a punch in the nose any day.

Professor Manning suggested that the pub-

lic is less concerned about issues such as

corruption because such issues are less

visible than instances of excessive force:

Now the reason that [Professor

Klockars’s] points about procedure,

deception, and corruption perhaps are

less public concerns is that they are

often done without people knowing or

[being] aware of those things going on.

Perjury in cases, corruption, implicit

lying to each other, and manipulation

of records and the rest [are] less likely

to become public. So the focus is often

on those more public cases of

coercion.…The public concern is…[on]

those issues of excessive use of force

that…become known.…Media events,

in the sense, are [not] created by the

media, but the media amplified

them.…The videos and the visibility of

these things through television…[are]

now become international.

Professor Slocum raised—in order to reject—

the provocative suggestion, which he attrib-

uted to Professor Randall Kennedy, that

“there ought to be a sliding scale when it

comes to legitimacy.…[S]ince the black

community is the biggest victim of all

…[T]he public

is less

concerned

about issues

such as

corruption

because such

issues are

less visible

than instances

of excessive

force.

Police Foundation

7

crime,…they need greater protection when

it comes to ‘equal protection,’ and, there-

fore, aggressive law enforcement is required.”

Mr. Williams agreed that the implications

were “a little bit scary.” Professor Slocum

offered a preference for “a constitutional

standard.” The issue of local standards and

legitimate authority is integral to the dis-

cussion of police authority and commu-

nity policing. (See pages 89–91, 93–95,

107–108, inter alia.)

Abuse of authority can encompass a wide

range of activities (or inactivities) from lack

of professionalism to corruption to brutal-

ity. The police chiefs discussed which forms

of abuse they were particularly concerned

about in their departments. They identi-

fied three types of misconduct: excessive

force, theft, and inappropriate language.

In the context of community policing, they

were particularly concerned with the re-

structuring of authority that might be leav-

ing officers with insufficient supervision

and inviting certain forms of corruption,

such as accepting gifts, discounts, and so

forth. They agreed that incidents involving

unnecessary use of force do occur in all

departments and that such situations are of

serious concern when they do arise. How-

ever, they also agreed that such incidents

are not widespread problems and do not

occur on a regular basis. In the view of the

police executives, the perception by the

public that police brutality is rampant in

many police departments can be attributed

to the media coverage of isolated incidents.

Commissioner Frazier expressed concern

about incidents of theft by officers in

his department, but argued that he was see-

ing “isolated instances,” not “systemic

corruption”:

This could be anything from picking

up the money from the crap game when

everybody runs, to young officers who

start at $25,000 a year and see a drug

dealer on the corner with $2,500 in [his]

pocket.…They count it out and $2,100

ends up going back in the pocket. You

foot chase [criminals who] used to pitch

their gun; now they pitch their money

because that ends the foot chase.

I don’t see systemic corruption. I don’t

see an officer taking a thousand dol-

lars a week, two hundred for him, two

hundred for the sergeant, two hundred

for the lieutenant, two hundred for the

captain, two hundred for the district

commander, but we see individual cases

of theft.

And usually, I’d say more times than

not, it involves more than one officer.

The chiefs also expressed concern about

unprofessional behavior in the form of in-

appropriate language. Chief Sanders and

Commissioner Frazier both indicated that

discourteous and inappropriate language

directed at community residents is a seri-

ous problem for police departments. It not

only hurts the police department’s image but

also can hamper community policing efforts

in neighborhoods. Commissioner Frazier

revealed an incident that disturbed him:

[T]he other thing that disturbs me is lan-

guage. [When] I gave my community

policing speech, I had a woman basi-

cally tell me, “I’m not going to help

you.” Long story short, she said there

was some kind of disturbance outside

her front door. She opened the door to

see what was going on.

…[T]he

perception

…that police

brutality is

rampant in

many police

departments

can be

attributed to

the media

coverage of

isolated

incidents.

8


[The] officer said, “Lady, get your ass

back up inside that house.”

She said, “That was uncalled for; I will

not help you if that is the way your

officers treat me.”

That disturbs me because we’re trying

to develop trust and partnership and

relationships that will assist us in com-

munity organization development.…In

that community-policing model, we talk

about retaking the city neighborhood

by neighborhood, if we can; block by

block, if we can’t; house by house, if

we have to. I mean, it’s just not going

to work if we cannot develop the kind

of trust.

A wide range of issues was discussed in

attempting to define abuse of authority.

Participants pointed out that in determin-

ing the boundaries for the proper use of

authority, one must examine the relevant

standards by which an officer’s behavior is

judged. Most preferred not to limit the dis-

cussion to the use of force, but rather to

include any type of misconduct, whether

criminal or unprofessional. Three standards

or levels of authority were identified as

measures for inappropriate use of author-

ity: court rulings and state law (legal), de-

partmental policies (professional), and the

larger society’s concept of acceptable and

unacceptable conduct (societal). In addi-

tion, the participants identified the need to

take into consideration the level of com-

pliance or noncompliance demonstrated by

an individual being taken into custody by

the police, recognizing that abuse of force

is an interactive concept.

Participants suggested that the boundaries

of abuse of authority are not limited to acts

of police brutality but rather include any

type of police misconduct. The media’s

intensive coverage of incidents of police

brutality, coupled with the fact that most

other forms of misconduct are not public

knowledge, results in the assumption that

brutality is the most prevalent form of

abuse of authority. This misperception di-

rects the focus of public concern to bru-

tality and away from corruption and un-

professional conduct, which may be more

prevalent in modern policing than brutal-

ity. The police chiefs confirmed this posi-

tion, indicating that although brutality does

occur, incidents are infrequent. The behav-

ior that could be construed as abuse of

authority by police officers and that was of

greatest concern to the chiefs was theft and

unprofessional and discourteous conduct.

The rise of community policing emphasizes

the development of partnerships among

police and communities and their citizens.

Misconduct by officers, especially discour-

teous and disrespectful behavior, erodes the

foundation of trust that departments must

build on to create successful partnerships,

and it alienates the community.

Abuse of Authority andCommunity PolicingCentral to the community-policing ap-

proach is the development of partnerships

between the community and police to

formulate and implement effective crime-

prevention strategies. These strategies

often require officers to use problem-

solving skills and to rely on a range of

resources and agencies in addressing

community problems.

The impact of this philosophy on abuse of

authority by police was a central topic of

debate and a discussion by the participants

throughout the meeting. Although most

Three

standards…

were identified

as measures for

inappropriate

use of authority:

court rulings

and state law…,

departmental

policies…,

and…society’s

concept of

acceptable and

unacceptable

conduct….

Police Foundation

9

agreed that community policing enhances

crime control and crime prevention, they

also agreed that this style of policing may

lead to increased opportunities for, and thus

incidents of, abuse of authority, especially

given the significantly changed role of the

supervisor under community-oriented

policing.

In discussing police abuse of authority and

the effects of community policing, partici-

pants enumerated several factors that in-

fluence an officer’s use of authority. These

factors may be categorized into two main

themes: internal influences and external

influences.

Internal influences include the effects of

departmental policies on officer behavior.

These effects include the use of civil rem-

edies in crime control and the changing

role of supervisors under community-

policing models.

External influences include those factors

that are the result of the police–commu-

nity relationship. Factors included in this

category are community demands and ex-

pectations on the behavior of officers, plus

the effect that the close police–community

relationship has on opportunity for abuses

of authority, particularly corruption.

The Use of Civil Law to Address

Crime Problems: The Local Context

of Community Policing

Picking up on Professor Slocum’s point

about the differential use of aggressive law-

enforcement techniques in poorer commu-

nities, Professor Manning introduced an

interesting discussion about the “local con-

text of enforcement” and whether the

growth in the use of civil law to address

crime problems has expanded the author-

ity of police beyond the boundaries of

previously appropriate behavior. He raised

the provocative suggestion that

One of the kinds of abuse of authority

that’s growing is a collection of all kinds

of civil penalties and…collusions by city

agencies to use civil law, to, say, evict

people from public housing:

Abuse of authority that ranges into the

mobilization of a political unit against

minority populations on the grounds

of it’s drugs or on the grounds of it’s

public order, or on the grounds of it’s

other points.

…But authority that comes through the

widening of the net to use…and [that]

coordinates a variety of other means to

coerce and minimize the opportunities

for appeal, I think, is very serious.…

If you view mobilizing the housing

bureau…you use civil law. There’s tax

law, [and you] use RICO statutes. Then

you’re beginning to organize the po-

litical [part of the state] in a very dif-

ferent way than focusing the police to

aggressively, proactively intervene

[with] the sweeps or stops or even ar-

rests.

I think that’s a different level of abuse.

And the remedies are very, very rare.

Indeed, they’re available only in civil

law if you can hire a lawyer, and it’s

really simply not done. It just happens.

You’re out. It’s done.

Professor Mastrofski agreed with Profes-

sor Manning, noting that the civil law mo-

bilization he describes “is very much on

the agenda of community policing,

problem solving. Herman Goldstein de-

voted a good part of his book to saying

…[G]rowth in

the use of civil

law to address

crime problems

has expanded

the authority

of police.…

10


police should explore these very things.”

Mastrofski went on to suggest that these

methods raise a question of invasion of

privacy as a new form of abuse of author-

ity: “There is another domain too, which is

the invasion of privacy, which…often

doesn’t involve coercion, but can involve

abuse of authority.” Professor Mastrofski

took the point further, questioning whether

this entire set of community-policing strat-

egies is good policing or whether it involves

“a mobilization of bias”:

What do you do with a situation

where—and this is quite common in

my experience—police officers suspect

someone of dealing drugs, maybe in

public housing or something like that.

They can’t develop sufficient criminal

evidence to invoke the criminal law.

But there’s a whole different standard

when it comes to public housing that

they can mobilize because of who they

are, public housing people, quite se-

lectively. And whether or not this is

good policing or legal—I suspect it’s

legal; but whether it’s good policing or

whether it involves a mobilization of

bias similar to the kind that [Professor

Slocum] was talking about.

After these challenges to the legitimacy of

central strategies of community policing,

it was not long before Chief Sanders rose

to the defense:

I don’t think that’s any different than

issues of discretion…on the criminal

side and the civil side. And I think the

civil side has just as many protections.

We use the civil side for abatement on

some difficult problems simply because

the criminal side doesn’t provide

significant remedy in the situation. And

all of these involve community mem-

bers; they involve attorneys; they in-

volve judges. I mean, these aren’t things

that are done behind closed doors and

some secret thing. These are done at

community meetings, these are done

with the presiding judge, they’re done

with a defense attorney, or they’re done

with the city attorney that looks at these

things

And they’re much more difficult…than

pursuing criminals. But we’re looking

for a different outcome on it. And I

would suggest that the same discretion

an officer uses in making an arrest is

used in this type of situation.

In fact, I think [it’s] scrutinized even

more because it’s something that isn’t

an immediate thing. It’s a planned thing

where you have to go through so many

hoops to get it done. Where an arrest

out in the field is something that you

see your probable cause, you use your

discretion, you make the arrest right

there, and then it’s reviewed after the

fact.

Professor Skolnick offered that he did not

agree that having a “very local vision

of…what’s authority” is abusive. Chief

Sanders noted that the procedures are open

and participatory:

These are done working with the

people who are going to be affected

and telling them what has to change

…as you actually bring in legal aid to

work with them and bring in adult

protective services, bringing in child

protective services, bringing in all those

“We use the

civil side…on

some difficult

problems

simply because

the criminal

side doesn’t

provide

significant

remedy….

And all of

these involve

community

members;

they involve

attorneys;

they involve

judges.”

Police Foundation

11

resources to try to solve it at one level

first. And yet, when the activity contin-

ues—and I do think that you bring the

resources that you have to bear on that

issue. And it’s not—you know, I don’t

see it as being duplicitous or anything

else. The agenda is out. It’s not done

behind closed doors.

Later, Professor Worden returned to the

issue of giving police authority to invoke

civil law to solve crime problems. Rather

than expanding the potential for abuses of

authority, he argued, “If I understood

Herman Goldstein correctly, [civil law]

might, at the same time, make it less likely

that police abuse their authority. If they

have a wider range of tools that they can

apply in a somewhat more surgical fash-

ion to the problems that they confront,

they may be less likely to abuse their

authority.”

Professor Klockars agreed: “The argument

is that one of the sources of police abuse

of authority is our failure to give police

adequate means to do the work we

demand of them.”

Professor Mastrofski suggested that invok-

ing civil law provided the ability to “target

through civil means” rather than “running

sweeps in the neighborhood.”

Chief Sanders expanded: “Rather than

using a zero-tolerance model on all win-

dow washers or all…disorder issues, you

look at specific areas where you have

problems.…You can document those

areas, and you remove the cause that

allows that to occur.”

The Changing Role of Supervisors

under Community Policing

Adopting the community-policing philoso-

phy in departments is not a simple task.

Internal policies and procedures have to

be revamped to incorporate the new strat-

egies and policing practices. As Chief Sand-

ers suggested, “[T]hat’s a really important

issue with community policing…because

we’re restructuring departments to fit the

community-policing model.” With the

implementation of community policing,

departments are experiencing a change in

the roles, responsibilities, and levels of

authority of line supervisors, specifically

sergeants and lieutenants. This change has

led to a variety of concerns and problems

related to supervision by sergeants and lieu-

tenants, and to selection and appropriate

training of sergeants.

The supervisory concerns expressed by the

police chiefs are twofold: first, the issue of

how the sergeants supervise and subse-

quently discipline the officers they

command; second, the issue of how the

sergeants communicate with the lieuten-

ants. Chief Sanders laid out his concerns

about supervision under community

policing as follows:

I think…a really important issue with

community policing is the internal issues,

the supervision…because we’re restruc-

turing departments to fit the community-

policing model. And the rigid structures

we have in place for how you super-

vise, how many people you supervise,

how you did it, are gone. And now our

sergeants don’t really know how [to

supervise].…We told them it’s a team.

We’ve reduced spans of control.

“…[Civil law]

might…make it

less likely that

police abuse

their authority.

If they have a

wider range of

tools that they

can apply in

a somewhat

more surgical

fashion.…”

12


And all of a sudden we find the ser-

geants are closer to the team members,

the officers, than they are to the de-

partment. And we’re not seeing those

types of decisions we had seen in the

past where they stopped things before

they become problems or where they’re

writing up discipline.

Instead, they’re so close to the people

on the team that it creates problems.

And I think that’s a large issue because

it starts spilling out externally after

you’ve had the internal damage. And

we’re struggling with a training program

on how to bring the sergeants back up.

And as we’re moving through this, we’re

finding that we’re in whole new terri-

tories that we’ve never considered when

we restructured the police department,

because we just weren’t aware of what

was going to happen.

Community policing increases the author-

ity of supervisors and line officers. “So we’re

going to give the lieutenant 24-hour-a-day

responsibility.…[S]ergeants…don’t know

what to do and loyalties are misplaced.…

[I]n an attempt to push authority, responsi-

bility, accountability down to [lower

ranking officers] to get…the community

involved in the decision-making processes,

you’ve actually changed all the manage-

ment dynamics of your police department”

(Commissioner Frazier).

Chief Sanders agreed completely with

Commissioner Frazier:

And that’s exactly what we’re facing.

We did exactly the same thing. And we

used to have a lieutenant that super-

vised during a band of time, and the

people knew that that person was there.

Now that person has 24-hour respon-

sibility, and that lieutenant may not see

[his] sergeants for a week or two.

Professor Klockars had observed the same

problems in another department, and he

felt that the lack of supervision created a

great potential for corruption and other

abuses:

Well the problem, from a management

point of view, is that the community-

services officers, by and large, dictate

their own schedules. They’re on total

flex time.…Number two, the problems

that they decide to address are calls

they get…and they’ve got an answer-

ing machine that they pick up.

So they operate almost independently

of the other. Well, there’s nobody who’s

supervising in that situation. I mean,

you can say I’m the lieutenant or the

sergeant in that area, but I don’t know

when you’re working.

And our paths may cross, and I’ll get a

little summary of what you’ve been

doing; but in terms of you seeing me

on any regular basis, it’s very [in-

frequent].…I think from the point of

view of potential corruption or abuses

or whatever, that scares the hell out of

me if I’m a police chief, to have these

potentially 70 independent agents out

solving what they think are problems

[and] drawing on whatever resources

they can command.

…And it’s just one of those areas in com-

munity policing that, I think, [those] de-

partments that are committed to [com-

munity policing will] have to struggle

with as to how we control it, how do

we supervise it, how we manage it.

“…[T]o push

authority,

responsibility,

accountability

down to [lower

ranking officers]

to get…the

community

involved in the

decision-making

processes,

you’ve actually

changed all the

management

dynamics of

your police

department.”

Police Foundation

13

Professor Slocum agreed that “the difficulty

with this corruption aspect is they’re inde-

pendent agents, and that’s conducive to

corruption, [which] makes it the…least

detectable kind of abuse.”

This change in management style and in-

ternal department dynamics leads to an-

other area of concern for police depart-

ments in implementing the community-

policing model—selection and training of

sergeants. The role of the sergeant under

community policing has changed in terms

of responsibility and authority. Commis-

sioner Frazier pondered:

It almost makes me wonder if we

needn’t redesign how we select ser-

geants. I mean, if we have selected ser-

geants traditionally to get one kind and

now we need to get a different kind of

result, [then] maybe the format we use,

the way we weight the exams, the ques-

tions we ask, the answers that we’re

looking for need to change to select

sergeants.…[N]ow that the lieutenant’s

not the bad guy anymore, the lieuten-

ant has 24-hour-a-day responsibility, the

sergeant has to be the disciplinarian,

and maybe we’ve not selected correctly

or trained correctly.

Chief Sanders agreed that the old training

is no longer effective:

I think you train the same way, but I

don’t think we follow up. You train in

the traditional role. And then we’re say-

ing [that] we want you to be flexible.

We want you to work with the com-

munity. We want you to be a team

member with these officers. We want

you to coach them. We want you to

work on team projects. So [with] the

training they’ve just received as a brand-

new sergeant, we’re saying…just keep

that in the back of your mind, but what

we really want you to do are all [of]

these things.

Chief Sanders explained:

We reduced the span of control from

one sergeant [for] 10 to 12 officers down

to one sergeant [for] six officers, think-

ing that they could better direct the

activities, better coach, better be a part

of it. And what we’re finding is [that]

they don’t know what to do now. We

removed the role of just evaluating,

looking at journals, adding numbers.

…Instead, we said you’re a part of that

team now; you have to direct it.…We

gave 40 hours of community policing

training, 40 hours of problem-solving

training…but we neglected the super-

vision part.

The Impact of Community Demands

and Expectations

Community policing stresses the need to

establish partnerships with the community

to identify neighborhood problems and to

formulate solutions. The tasks that com-

munity-policing officers are asked to ad-

dress can range from crime prevention

techniques to crime control strategies. An

important key to this police–community

relationship is the idea that different neigh-

borhoods require different police services.

Therefore, community policing is a flex-

ible model designed to change with each

community the police department serves.

The differences that are acknowledged to

exist from neighborhood to neighborhood

will also be reflected in the community’s

expectations of its neighborhood officers.

What is expected of an officer in the inner

“We gave

40 hours

of community

policing

training,

40 hours

of problem-

solving

training…

but we

neglected the

supervision

part.”

14


city may not be expected of an officer in a

suburban area. In addition, what the

community views as acceptable police be-

havior will also vary across communities.

Chief Oliver spoke thoughtfully about the

negotiated relationship between the police

and the local community they serve:

I think, at least from a practitioner’s

standpoint, that community policing

implies—authorizes, I think, in a way

police departments as a whole, and then

as individuals—to negotiate a certain

relationship with the community.

It’s a localized relationship with the

community they serve. And they nego-

tiate the expectations, some of which

we have talked about here, the expec-

tations of how police officers will

behave, how much force they will use,

where they will appear, the kinds of

programs they’ll be involved in.

That’s what community policing in my

mind is. It’s a negotiation—an ongoing

negotiation and conversation [between]

a community and its police department.

And part of, I think, the glaringness of

the abuses that we’ve talked about has

to do with—in the context of commu-

nity policing—[the fact that they] are

so far out of the negotiated relation-

ship that that police department and that

community thought they had.

Chief Oliver suggested that when the com-

munity has been involved in “negotiated

expectations,” an incident like the Abner

Louima case is even worse.

As the relationships and expectations vary

between communities, so do the demands

of community members on the police. In

high-crime neighborhoods where the com-

munity mobilizes to drive the criminals out,

residents may demand swifter and stron-

ger action by the police than they would

in a neighborhood with a lower crime rate.

These community demands may influence

not only the behavior of the police in that

neighborhood, but also the residents’ per-

ception of this conduct. Indeed, as Profes-

sor Klockars suggested, and as Professor

Mastrofski affirmed, residents may ask the

police to engage in what the police know

is illegal activity—to use excessive force,

to violate rights—and this may be a par-

ticular problem for community policing:

(Klockars) [S]ome proportion of force

is…in response to demands for it from

the community.…The community says

we want this problem fixed. And the

community may apply real pressures

on the police to use excessive means

to achieve that.

(Mastrofski) They do all the time.

(Klockars) All the time. And may be

uniquely a problem in community

policing where that voice of the com-

munity becomes pretty strong.

Director Pugh thought that the police could

resist these pressures: “Well you can’t

succumb to that. That just causes you

major problems.”

Professor Klockars emphasized the point:

“But just don’t misrepresent the problem;

force is something that police officers are

just generating. That there’s a demand for

excessive force from the communities is

all I’m saying, too, in many cases.”

These community demands, however, are

not limited to implementation of stronger

“That’s what

community

policing…is.

It’s a

negotiation—

an ongoing

negotiation and

conversation

[between] a

community

and its police

department.”

Police Foundation

15

crime-control tactics and a tougher stance

by the police. With this community–police

relationship, the community relies on the

police to solve a broader range of prob-

lems, problems that have traditionally been

outside of the realm of police work. This

reliance on the police to solve a more var-

ied set of neighborhood problems implies

that society is vesting more authority in the

police. The more authority the police are

given, the greater the likelihood for abuse.

Chief Sanders spoke of the increasing pres-

sures on the police “to lead every effort,”

and Professor Klockars pointed out that

“the more broadly you extend the scope

of police responsibility and authority, the

more occasions there are for the potential

abuse of that.”

As Chief Sanders put it:

[I]t’s to the point now where everybody

looks to the police to lead every effort,

it seems like, because we seem to be

the most effective in doing it.

When we make a mistake,…we’re held

to a much stricter standard than corpo-

rations. We’re probably the least edu-

cated, the least funded to really know

how to do all of these issues well. And

yet we’re held to a much higher stan-

dard.

And our officers are being tested every

day with incredible challenges. I mean,

when I was out on the street it was a

pretty easy job. You got 10 numbers a

day. And you stayed out of trouble. And

you were rated as an excellent cop.

Our cops don’t have that luxury today

of having quotas anymore. We make

them do all sorts of things. And every-

body is looking to them to lead every

effort, whether it has anything to do

with policing or not.

You know,…the problem with expan-

sion of community policing is that we’re

more effective. There’s more demand.

And we’re being placed in arenas that

we just have no business being in.

And it’s awfully hard for police depart-

ments to say no because we tradition-

ally made our power base by doing more

and more and more so that we got more

cops and more funding and all of that.

And the challenge, though, is what you

talked about here.

And that’s the reason I’ve been sitting

here trying to figure out how you in-

corporate some of the ideas that we’ve

talked about in here in the policy for

police departments.

And it’s very easy to sit around the table

and listen to academics talk about the

issues. I just hope you appreciate how

difficult it is to turn that into concrete

policy for our cops.

…[Y]our message has to be extremely

clear when you send out directions to

your officers because they will take it

literally, especially if they don’t like your

directions.

The Closer Community–Police

Relationship and the Potential

for Corruption

In discussing the effects of community

policing on abuses of authority, several

participants raised the concern that the

close relationship established between the

community and police could increase the

potential for corrupt behavior. Professor

“…[T]he

problem with

…community

policing is that

we’re more

effective.

There’s more

demand.

And we’re

being placed

in arenas that

we just have

no business

being in.”

16


Klockars reminded the group that the pro-

fessional policing model that is being re-

jected in favor of community policing was

put into place precisely in order to pre-

vent corruption:

Let’s keep in mind that all of the things

we’ve tried to move away from in inci-

dent-driven policing and the old pro-

fessional-model policing were originally

put in to control corruption, to control

abuses. And as we back away from

them and move to community models,

I suspect that we introduce a whole new

set of problems.

Commissioner Frazier expressed concern

that the emphasis on developing relation-

ships is an invitation for misbehavior

and for undue influence by community

members:

One of the things that troubles me about

community policing is you talk about

establishing relationships. The longer

the relationship exists, I think the more

opportunity for corruption.

Let’s say that your neighborhood ser-

vices officer has been in a neighbor-

hood for X number of years. And just

as a departmental response, we say that

these assignments are limited.

And now the very communities that you

have sent this officer out to develop a

relationship with will come to me and

then to all the political entities at every

level to try to influence the assignment

process inside. So that’s going to come

down the line.

And you have to see a balance of rela-

tionship versus opportunity for misbe-

havior.

The concern about abuse of authority un-

der community policing that was expressed

by the panelists focused on the potential

for corruption that arises under the com-

munity-policing model. None indicated a

concern about increased incidents of po-

lice brutality under community policing.

Director Pugh suggested that excessive

force comes from officers who are frus-

trated because they are not part of a “glam-

orous community-policing unit”:

A lot of the excessive force [is] not com-

ing from the individuals assigned to

community policing. [It’s] coming from

the individuals who are frustrated, who

feel that they’re not a part of that glam-

orous community-policing unit that gets

all of the praise for everything that’s

done that’s successful in the police

department.

So that mobile unit, that unit that

handles the calls for the department,

they feel that they’re isolated in the unit

in another arena. And the community

suffers for that.

The types of corruption that result from

this relationship with the community usu-

ally take the form of officers accepting gra-

tuities, discounts, and other similar gifts

from community residents and businesses

in their area. Participants illustrated a num-

ber of examples of the situations that can

arise; a central theme in these examples is

the complexity of the issue and the diffi-

culty of establishing standards for what is

abuse of authority. As Professor Klockars

put it:

Maybe it just is different in different

places and you have people…articu-

lating different points of view on how

“…[A]ll of the

things we’ve

tried to move

away from in…

professional-

model policing

were originally

…to control

corruption,

to control

abuses.”

Police Foundation

17

to do this. You know, there’s the po-

lice foundation solution. There’s the one

that says we want these community

partnerships. The other one says we’ll

have these community partnerships, but

there can be no financial component

to it. I mean, we don’t want our com-

munities to be buying our bike patrol

officers bikes. If they need bikes, we’ll

buy them out of the general fund. You

know, there’s all sorts of different views.

Director Pugh suggested that some com-

munity members tried to buy bikes for spe-

cific officers in hopes of keeping those

officers on their beat:

One of the things that they’re starting

to do, which we have to—well, I have

to stop immediately. They weren’t at-

tempting only to buy the bicycle; they

were buying it for Officer Jones. They

could guarantee that Officer Jones

would stay there.

Professor Klockars pointed to the irony of

some situations: “So if you run a

McDonald’s and you give a cop a free meal,

that’s corruption. But if you give a whole

booth, that’s community policing.”

Director Pugh pointed to the complexity:

The officers don’t feel that there’s a

problem with accepting a sandwich or

coffee, or I can recall where they would

have a cookout, businesses, for the of-

ficers from the community-policing unit

assigned. And they would feed them

all.

Mr. Williams also suggested how compli-

cated questions of corruption can become

under community policing:

I wonder whether or not in an era of

community-oriented policing it is im-

portant to look at the issues of motive

and not merely look at questions of

when you, in fact, cross over the line.

Let me give an example.

Let’s assume that a young police officer

comes on the job. He’s walking the beat.

He goes in. He orders a slice of pizza.

He puts his money down to pay for

the pizza. The owner says, “No. I don’t

take money from police officers. Here.

Take this back.”

And the officer says, “No, no, no. I

always pay. Take the money.” And it

ends up getting into almost a fight, you

know. I’m telling you because I expe-

rienced this situation.

Is that corruption? I mean, you have to

fight this guy to make him take the

money. You know? And you’re telling

the cops now, “We want you to estab-

lish contacts and work with the neigh-

borhood, develop relationships, and

stuff like that.”

I think this issue, this corruption issue,

is very complex.

Professor Martinez offered another

example:

As another example, there is a favorite

cigar shop that some of the detectives

in Miami go to and get discounts. Some-

times I go with them, and I get dis-

counts too.

I asked the shopkeeper why about this

discount. His response had very little

to do with maintaining a relationship

with these specific officers, but what

“…[I]n an

era of

community…

policing

it is important

to look at the

…motive

and not merely

…questions

of when you…

cross over

the line.”

18


he wanted was for the local bad guys

to see the cars going in and out, main-

taining a presence in that area. And that

was his motivation to let the other

people know in the community, “Hey,

I have people coming in on a regular

basis. Don’t rob me during the day.

Don’t burglarize my shop at night.”

Professor Klockars described the formal-

ized nature of police discounts in one busi-

ness establishment:

Anybody who is interested can come

to Delaware to Dunkin’ Donuts, the

doughnut shops. On the register,

they’ve got a list of prices that faces

back to the person who operates the

cash register. And then next to that,

there’s a column that says, “Police.” And

they’re all half.

…[T]hat’s just the policy. They like the

cops coming in and out for extra secu-

rity, and they want to be able to call on

them when there’s a problem.

One concern that emerged was the motive

of the police officers involved in any inci-

dent of misconduct, as well as the motive

of the citizen or business that provides “gra-

tuities” to an officer in the community. This

consideration of motive was seen as

increasingly important as many police

departments move toward the imple-

mentation of community policing.

Participants recognized that this type of

behavior (i.e., businesses giving free or

discounted meals to officers, etc.) had been

going on before the implementation of

community policing, but as Chief Sanders

pointed out, “It’s just more subtle now than

it was before.” Also, the consequences of

not accepting gratuities can be greater in

terms of alienating members of the com-

munity with whom the police are trying to

establish a working relationship under the

philosophy of community policing.

We have gone to an establishment that

had a police key, which was half-price.

We went out and said, “If you don’t

stop doing that, we will forbid our

officers to eat here.”

I mean, we’ve had to do it with

…several places. But that happened

before community policing. It’s hap-

pening now. I think…the issues now

are so much more subtle. I mean it’s:

Do you participate in, like you said, a

business or group of business people

showing appreciation to all, perhaps?

It’s a much more subtle thing. Or do

you allow your officers to go out for a

big community event that’s a combined

thing with the community and go out

and solicit hot dogs and hot dog buns…?

And do you allow them to take that?

I mean, what business feels like they

can say no to cops [who] come in and

say,…“We need 500 hot dogs for the

community social on a Friday”? And

that’s difficult for cops because they’re

trying to do their part to increase to-

getherness in the community.…

I mean, I think it’s just much more

subtle now than it was before. And it’s

hard to talk in those shades because

the officers get invited to dinner at

people’s houses because they create

friendships.

The friendships are created, which is

what we’re trying to do. And when is it

not? And when is it a gratuity to go

into a friend’s business and get a cup

“…[D]o you

allow your

officers to go

out for a big

…event that’s

a combined

thing with

the community

and…solicit

hot dogs and

hot dog buns?”

Police Foundation

19

of coffee, and when is it not? I mean, I

just think these are really difficult is-

sues not only for the police officers but

also for police management.

Where do we draw the line? Is it, as O.

W. Wilson said, “The first cup of coffee

you take for free is the start of corrup-

tion,” or is it [that] we need to be a little

bit more understanding about the

motives that we’re talking about?

Professor Skolnick spoke about the

motives involved:

Businessmen have a motive for devel-

oping a category that will allow them

to make a profit so that they have these

places being used because there’s a

general overhead.

And that’s what I’m saying why mo-

tives get to be very complicated. The

question is whether rational economic

motives apply to the police in the same

way. And in some ways they do, and

in some ways they don’t.

I mean, it’s rational to give a category

of persons a break because you want

to do more business and the more busi-

ness you do, the more your general

costs are covered.

[Yet,] you want to give police a break

because you want services from the po-

lice. And one of the services may be

merely appearance. [B]ut then you have

the other appearance problem of the

free hot dog, which then people don’t

understand this and don’t see it as

ethical.

I guess the bottom line is [that] I don’t

think you can get into these larger ethi-

cal questions. I don’t think that’s the

issue.

Mr. Williams addressed the issue as follows:

So [with] this issue of corruption, I think

maybe we have to be careful about how

we try and frame this thing. [We have

to] recognize the complexity and the

subtlety associated with it in this com-

munity. When we had the old traditional

style of policing, we could say to the

cop, “Here’s what you do.” He’s

dispassionate and he’s distant.

Now you want him to be close to the

people he’s servicing. You want him to

establish relationships. You want him

to formulate partnerships.

In summary, the implementation of com-

munity policing has far-reaching effects on

police departments that go beyond how

police services are rendered to the com-

munity. Participants suggested that several

aspects of the community-oriented

policing model and its implementation,

both internal and external, may increase

the opportunity for, and thus the likelihood

of, abuse of authority.

The internal factors are the increased use

of civil law and procedures to address crime

problems, and the new role of sergeants

and lieutenants under the community-po-

licing model. Both factors affect officer

behavior, and participants voiced concern

that each may increase the opportunity for

abuse of authority. Participants debated

whether the new tools that the civil law

provides will expand authority, and thus

potential abuse, or will refine police ac-

tions and, therefore, reduce potential abuse.

Supervision problems include the lack of

training for new roles and relationships,

the sergeants becoming too close to the

officers they supervise, and the lieutenants

becoming too removed.

Supervision

problems

include the

lack of

training for

new roles and

relationships,

the sergeants

becoming too

close to the

officers they

supervise, and

the lieutenants

becoming too

removed.

20


External factors and concerns relate to the

relationship between the community and

the police, which is critical to community

policing. This relationship can lead to in-

creased demands and expectations by the

community, which may pressure officers

into using excessive means to address the

community’s problems. Also, the close na-

ture of this police partnership with the

community creates increased opportunities

and pressures for officers to engage in some

forms of corrupt conduct. Despite these

concerns, it was suggested that if police

managers were able to take steps to ad-

dress the potential problems that may re-

sult from implementation of community

policing, this policing style could improve

community relations and benefit police

departments.

Finally, Chief Sanders expressed what was

probably a consensus position when he

said, “The departments that have the cor-

ruptive influence under the other style of

policing are the ones who are going to be

the most susceptible under the community-

style policing.”

Societal Factors That AffectAbuse of AuthorityThis section of the meeting moved away

from the structure of policing and its rela-

tionship to police authority to a discussion

of other societal factors that may affect

abuse of police authority, issues such as

perception and reality of the role of race,

ethnicity, and social status. These factors

are of increasing concern in an increas-

ingly multicultural society. Several surveys

have shown that racial minorities perceive

the problem of violation of rights by

police as being much greater than the white

community does. This difference suggests

that examining societal factors is a relevant

and important segment of a study of abuse

of police authority. Are these differences

misperceptions or do they reflect reality?

Participants were asked what their thoughts

are on this issue, whether or not the

public’s perceptions are accurate, and

whether different styles of policing are

more relevant in an examination of these

societal factors. The panelists’ responses

covered a wide array of topics. In some

instances, their comments addressed the

issue of race and the effects of race on

police–citizen interactions. However, their

responses also addressed the effects of

different communities’ income levels on

citizen perception and police behavior, and

the effects of neighborhood crime rates on

police and policing strategies.

Incivility and Cultural Differences as

Influences on Abuse of Authority

Throughout the day, the effect of citizen

misperceptions of police and the effect

these mistaken views have on police–citi-

zen interactions arose in the discussion.

Participants noted that many instances of

police abuse of authority result from a

negative interaction with a suspect or of-

fender. In other words, police officers do

not go out looking to abuse an individual,

but rather the abuse is a response to a “bad”

attitude by the citizen, and it takes the form

of discourtesy or disrespect toward the

police.

Professor Mastrofski offered the following

observations, which he based on a recent

departmental study:

We found in this particular city that the

rate of incivility or discourtesy…coming

“The

departments

that have the

corruptive

influence

under the

other style of

policing are

the ones who

are going to be

the most

susceptible

under the

community-

style policing.”

Police Foundation

21

from citizens was far higher than was

coming from police.… The factor was

about five to one for African-American

citizens, [which was] much higher than

the other groups in terms of acting in a

discourteous fashion toward the police.

The police rate was much lower. We

also looked at who acted discourteously

first.…[I]nitially the police initiated dis-

courtesy quite rarely,…but they will

retaliate. [And] that is fair. So what

comes from this particular department

is a fairly professional response. And

that is a very human thing when you

get dissed to respond in a similar fash-

ion. So there are a lot of ways of look-

ing at it. Every instance of discourtesy

by a police officer is bad PR and bad

policing, but not unexpected in a hu-

man kind of thing.

An interesting discussion took place about

the effect of the cultural differences that

may exist between the officers and the citi-

zens they come into contact with. Some

felt that these cultural differences may re-

sult in the officer’s perceiving an individual

as antagonistic or uncivil. Mr. Williams

suggested:

One of the things that we’ve got is [that]

often we don’t understand the language

that’s being communicated. And we’re

communicating in different ways. That’s

why you heard all this talk at some point

about ebonics because of the linguistics.

…I think that it would be interesting to

see…how [African Americans] see them-

selves in terms of reacting to certain

kinds of things. What do they call them-

selves? Do they see themselves as be-

ing uncivil? Do they see themselves as

being unfriendly to the officer, or is

there something else going on there that

maybe we don’t really understand?

Maybe the cop is looking at it as “this

guy is not showing me respect.” And

maybe the person in the community,

the environment where he communi-

cates, is showing him all the respect

that he could possibly be giving him.

The discussion of the role of cultural dif-

ference was not limited to racial differences.

Some emphasized the environmental and

background differences between officers

and citizens that result in misunderstand-

ings. Professor Skolnick suggested, “[Y]ou

can take a 22-year-old kid, and you put

that kid in Bedford-Stuyvesant, and he’s

grown up in a New Jersey suburb. He’s

scared to death, a white kid who is a cop.

He doesn’t know quite how to act.”

Chief Oliver noted:

I come from a city that is not typical of

what you are describing. This is a city

where there’s an awful lot of African-

American officers [who] are working

predominantly in African-American ar-

eas. And we are faced with some of

the same situations.

In many cases, the officers came from

the neighborhood and…speak the same

language, understand the nuances of

what people are saying and how they

say it to them. We’re still having some

difficulty.

If there’s more to it than that, I really

would like to get at that. I think it’s

fairly superficial just to say that it’s a

white [or] black [thing]. It’s people [who]

didn’t grow up in the area, that kind of

thing. There are a lot of other dynam-

ics, a lot of other variables going on

“Maybe the

cop is looking

at it as ‘this

guy is not

showing me

respect.’ And

maybe the

person in the

community…

is showing him

all the respect

that he could

possibly be

giving him.”

22


here about authority and about the way

people are alienated and disenfran-

chised.

…So there’s a lot more to it than just a

white person [who] did not grow up in

there. There are some serious other is-

sues going on here, even intraracial is-

sues that have nothing to do with color.

It has to do with culture.

The Effect of Race on Police—

Citizen Interactions

Although the effect of cultural or environ-

mental differences on police and citizen

interactions may explain some incidents of

police abuse of authority, the effect of race

on police behavior was also addressed by

the participants. Recent court rulings on

the police practice of “profiling” are a clear

example of the impact of race on police

practices and individual officer behavior.

It was suggested that the effect of race on

police behavior goes further than merely

the use of profiles to target certain groups

of citizens. Race reaches into and affects

the daily interactions between officer and

citizen. As Professor Slocum described his

own experience:

[Chief Oliver’s] point when he said he

can take people who are black, born

in the community, raised [in the] nu-

ances of the language, [and] put them

in that position, [then] he got the same

conflict he has for whites out there.

My whole life experience is I’m sitting

here saying this is not theory for me.

…I’m driving down a highway 90 miles

an hour. And I pass two state troopers

who were like talking.…

I see a guy pull out. I know he’s com-

ing. He roars. He doesn’t turn the light

on. What is he doing? He drives past

me at 100 miles an hour. But he looks

at me to see who I am. He looks first.

And then he slowed down, pulled in

behind me, turned the red light on.

And then when he pulled me over, I

bad-mouthed him. I told him, “Well,

you didn’t like what you saw.”

And he looked at me, and said, “Well,

you’re okay, man.”

“No, no, no, no, no. Why didn’t you

turn the light on when you first saw

me speed by you?” I asked him. And

he never gave me a ticket, and he let

me go. And I did bad-mouth him, told

him he was an incompetent police

officer. I did.

Well, see, let me tell you this. I had

assumed I was going to get the ticket.

But I was more aggravated because in

my mind’s eye…[h]e said, “Speeding

isn’t the violation. It’s you, who you

are, who would go by me and speed.

And I have to see who you are first.”

And when I told him that, he knew I

had told him the truth, and it paralyzed

him. It’s true.

Professor Mastrofski offered some results

from a study:

It is more complicated than that. We ac-

tually have data on Richmond that we

collected in ’92. One of the things we

looked at was whether the citizen com-

plied when the police said, “Quit being

disorderly. Leave somebody alone. Don’t

bother them. Leave the scene,” or “Stop

doing something illegal.”

“There are

some serious

…issues going

on here, even

intraracial

issues

that have

nothing to do

with color.

It has to do

with culture.”

Police Foundation

23

One of the things we looked at was the

appearance of the race of the officer and

the race of the citizen. And sometimes

what you get is not necessarily what you

expect because we’ve been talking about

the likelihood that the African-American

citizen will rebel against the white

officer.

In Richmond, we found that that combi-

nation was the most likely to be [a] white

officer [and an] African-American citizen.

And, not unexpectedly, the combination

that was least likely to secure compli-

ance was an African-American officer

[and a] white citizen.

I’m trying to remember the compari-

son of like race. I believe it was the

case that basically there was no differ-

ence between an African-American

officer, [with an] African-American citi-

zen and [a] white officer [with a] white

citizen at the extremes.

High-Crime Areas and Officer

Perceptions and Behavior

The topic of neighborhoods with high-

crime rates led to [a] heated discussion

among the panelists. One opinion ex-

pressed was that—because many minority

citizens reside in low-income, high-crime

areas in cities—acts by the police that ap-

pear to be racially motivated may, in fact,

be a response that can be attributed to the

high-crime rate in that neighborhood.

Professor Klockars suggested:

One of the consequences of living in a

crime-ridden neighborhood is that

police, rightfully so, are going to

interfere in your life very often.

When they get a call [that] there’s a black

male walking hurriedly down the street

and there’s been a robbery, if you hap-

pen to be a black male, you’re going to

be stopped. It’s not racist activity. It’s

simply one of the prices you pay for

living in a high-crime area.

This idea led to discussion over whether

or not this type of police action was

indeed fair. Mr. Williams suggested, “Well,

what if you don’t have much of a choice,

you’re poor?…It’s the only place you can

live.…So you end up being subjected to a

kind of harassment without your having

done anything improper or illegal.”

The panel disagreed over whether citizens

residing in high-crime areas should view

these frequent contacts with police as a

consequence of living in that neighborhood

and not as harassment, inappropriate

behavior, or abuse of authority. Professor

Klockars suggested that it is critical that

police attempt to communicate to citizens

the reasons behind their actions and to

apologize:

In those circumstances, it’s absolutely

critical that police explain why they

stopped you. And there are lots of

things you can do to repair that.…

[W]hat we have to do is train police to

apologize, to explain why it was

necessary for me to stop you, but you

can’t say to them, “Don’t stop people

in that neighborhood.”

The Effect of Neighborhood Income

Levels on Interactions with Police

The correlation between income level and

interactions with police was initially raised

by Professor Skolnick. He argued that

The panel

disagreed

…whether

citizens

residing in

high-crime

areas should

view…frequent

contacts with

police as a

consequence of

living in that

neighborhood

and not as

harassment….

24


varying types of enforcement strategies

affect poor people more than the middle

and upper classes, and, as a result, affect

minority groups because of the high

correlation between racial minority and

poverty. He described his experiences

observing police behavior in New York

City, where there has been a growing em-

phasis on implementing enforcement strat-

egies focused on quality-of-life crimes:

[T]his comes from some observations: A

young man is drinking beer on a hot

night on 170th Street and lives in an apart-

ment that’s not air-conditioned. He is

stopped by the police. Now, the next

thing that happens is he’s asked for his

ID. People walk downstairs, and they

don’t necessarily carry their IDs in their

wallets with them.

He’s been arrested. Okay? Now this is

all following the pattern. You know,

there’s no…“racial animus” here.

[I]f you don’t have your ID, you’re

going to be arrested. If you’re going to

be arrested, then you’re going to be

handcuffed and you’re going to be

searched. This is going to happen more

on 170th Street than it is on 70th Street,

where people live in air-conditioned

apartments.

So one of the things that happens in a

place like New York is that poor people

live more of their lives on the street. And

because they live more of their lives on

the street, they are going to be engaged

in minor violations.…

So I think there’s no question that this

kind of enforcement has [an] impact [on]

people who are poor essentially. And

there’s a high correlation between race

and poverty in most places, and

certainly in New York.

This type of zero-tolerance strategy has a

greater impact on people with low income

because, as Professor Klockars put it, “Poor

people commit more minor offenses,” of-

fenses that are characterized as quality-of-

life crimes. But is this abuse of authority?

Is an enforcement strategy that seeks to

place limitations on acceptable behavior

in public areas an abuse of police author-

ity simply because it will have a greater,

and perhaps a more negative, effect on a

certain group of citizens? Professor

Mastrofski suggested:

It depends on whether you’re talking

about infringement of offenders’ free-

doms and selectively doing that, or

whether you’re talking about a com-

munity that because there are so many

people who have need of using public

space makes it all the more compel-

ling to regulate behavior in those pub-

lic spaces.

The community’s perception may some-

times be that the enforcement policy is

selectively applied and thus is an abuse of

police authority. This perception may ex-

ist because residents do not believe the

behavior that a zero-tolerance policy tar-

gets is a problem or is related to the larger

crime issues in that neighborhood. Work-

ing with each neighborhood to identify

problems and to formulate solutions may

limit this perception, as Chief Sanders

suggested:

I think the issue, though, is that what

we have found in working with part-

nerships with[in] communities in ask-

ing what their priorities are, instead of

“…[T]his kind

of enforcement

has [an]

impact [on]

people who

are poor.…

And there’s

a high

correlation

between race

and poverty in

most places.…”

Police Foundation

25

us coming in and saying, “This is our

priority,” is that we have a lot of offic-

ers who grow up in an area where

they’ve never seen anybody drink on

the street [or] drink outside of a liquor

store. They thought that’s what the

problem was.

When they go in and ask communities

what the priorities are, it almost never

is those types of things because that’s

just a custom in the neighborhood.

They’ll talk about other issues that are

more important to them.

And I think that’s what the problem of

community policing is: actually work-

ing on issues that the neighborhood

agrees are a priority, instead of cops

coming in and saying, “This is unsightly.

This doesn’t fit the mold for the last

area that I worked in,” or “I think that

this is a crime generator.” The people

in the community know that it’s not.…

It’s their father out there; it’s their

cousin; it’s whoever.

And I think that’s where we’re going to

have to start making those inroads and

where we get the community’s priori-

ties, instead of [having] us overlaying

ours on top of them and deciding we’re

going to enforce in a certain way.

And that’s the only way we’re going to

be able to do it.…Otherwise it’s always

going to be on the racial side because

that’s what the majority of the police

departments are going to see as a prob-

lem because it doesn’t look like where

they grew up.

Professor Manning suggested that zero-tol-

erance policies regularly reflect middle-

class interests and not the interests of the

people in the community at which they

are directed:

When you look at it, you see what is

being done in the name of zero toler-

ance. Well, that’s not because it’s solic-

iting community police people to find

out what the neighbors want. But it’s

what the real estate people want and

the private property owners and oth-

ers who want the business districts to

live [and] thrive.

So it’s not a reflection on community

interests. And every one of the

examples of zero tolerance is about

lower-class interventions and lower-

class activities in a public area that

interfaces with the middle class.

In summary, the discussion suggested the

importance of considering a wide range of

societal factors, such as income, race, crime

rates, cultural differences, and even

personal attitudes of individuals, when

examining influences on police abuse of

authority. Also evident from the discussion

is the complexity of evaluating the real im-

pact of those factors on police and citizen

behavior.

Citizens’ perceptions of the police will likely

influence the manner in which they inter-

act with an officer. These perceptions are

formed and influenced by many factors.

Police must also consider such factors when

they interact with citizens. For example,

when aggressive policing policies such as

zero tolerance are implemented in a de-

partment, the enforcement of such poli-

cies will have more of an impact on lower-

income citizens. This increased contact with

police for minor violations of the law may

result in more negative perceptions. Such

“…[T]hat’s

what…

community

policing is:

…working on

issues that the

neighborhood

agrees are a

priority,

instead of cops

coming in and

saying, ‘This is

unsightly.”

26


interactions may be viewed by some com-

munity residents as abuses of authority

because the police are focusing on behav-

ior not perceived as problematic by the

community. Another important factor that

was discussed was the impact of race on

police practice. Participants debated

whether this factor manifests itself through

a combination of cultural differences and

bias, or whether each of these concepts

singularly influences abuse of authority.

Possible Solutions:Promoting “Good Policing”In this section of the meeting, panelists

were asked to identify policies and prac-

tices that departments may implement to

promote better standards of policing among

officers. The participants approached this

topic by attempting to determine how to

reduce, and ultimately prevent, varying

types of police abuse of authority. They

agreed that the best way to achieve this

goal would be to address policies that

would serve to alter the mentality of

police officers. To change the way police

officers think, departments would have to

focus on three areas: training, professional

standards, and means of reward and

recognition.

Particpants suggested that departmental

policies and practices that emphasize the

positive may serve as better deterrents to

abuse of authority by officers than merely

implementing more stringent types of dis-

cipline for misconduct. Three positive poli-

cies or practices were: (1) training and en-

couraging officers to do “good” policing,

(2) establishing high standards of profes-

sional excellence, and (3) recognizing and

rewarding the efforts of officers for a job

well done. The panelists also suggested

that raising the age of recruitment may be

beneficial. We will address the issue of age

first.

Participants suggested there is a relation-

ship between the age at which officers are

hired, their behavior, and their subsequent

abuse of authority. Some police depart-

ments have begun to hire older individu-

als because they bring greater maturity and

life experience to the job. The premise is

that this increased maturity and life exper-

ience will improve the level of policing

and perhaps reduce abuses of authority.

Chief Oliver stated, “That’s what we’re

doing, 20 to 30, as opposed to 20.”

Chief Sanders remarked about hiring a 22-

year-old: “You know, you give him the best

training you can, the best supervision.

You’ve still got a 22-year-old with a gun

and a fast car.” As he elaborated:

Yes. We’re in there even older. Our av-

erage is about 26 or 27 because what

you’re getting is people who have had

some life experience.

I shudder to think. I joined when I was

22, and I don’t think I quite caught up

to the job until I was in my mid 20s or

late 20s. It’s all of our, the police chiefs’,

nightmares to have a 22-year-old with

a gun and a fast car and red lights out

there.

You know, you give him the best train-

ing you can, the best supervision.

You’ve still got a 22-year-old with a gun

and a fast car.

Professor Manning concurred:

[I]t seems to me that people who are a

little more advanced in life with more

To change the

way police

officers think,

departments

would have to

focus on three

areas: training,

professional

standards,

and means

of reward and

recognition.

Police Foundation

27

life experiences might have a deeper

commitment to ethical values, for want

of a better term, might be better able to

resist some of the temptations that they

confront on the job so that who they

are is better established. And it has been

reflected in what they do and ideally is

more compatible with what the com-

munity expects.

And so did Professor Klockars:

I would have answered that the oppo-

site theory applies. That is, they are

more balanced and less extreme than

the 21-year-old, for whom the world is

much simpler. The more life experience

you have, the more complicated the

world becomes and, hopefully, the

more restraint you can show.

So…the one who scares me is the one

who joins as a police recruit at age 17,

hears all these old stories, lives inside

the police world, and then goes on to

become a policeman. This guy has

never talked to real people, just police,

or crime control. [He thinks] the com-

munity is divided between the good

people and the evil people and all of

those kinds of things.

I mean, you put me out. I start work-

ing in a factory. I begin to understand

that there [are] all sorts of different

people in this world. And they have

troubles, and I’ve had the same troubles.

And maybe I come to it with a little bit

more maturity at 25 than I do at 22.

Cultivating “Good Policing” Skills

The panelists agreed that training and en-

couraging officers to be “good” officers

rather than how not to be “bad” officers

was a priority for police departments.

Officers should have the necessary skills

and tools to be “good” officers instilled in

them from the start. As Professor Worden

put it, “If they have a wider range of tools

that they can apply in a somewhat more

surgical fashion to the problems that they

confront, they may be less likely to abuse

their authority.”

Professor Klockars went on:

[T]here has to be a cultivation of police

skill that motivates a police officer to

use those things with restraint or with

precision. That is, [officers should not]

settle for behavior [they] can get away

with without violating the criminal or

civil law, but [you should have] a stan-

dard of good police work that you want

cops to aspire to.

And we can all point to cops [whom]

we know can take a riot and calm it

down, and turn any domestic into a riot.

And that is an issue not of the law—

the criminal law or the civil law—but

of the skill of competent policing.

And what you end up trying to do…is

you try to encourage police officers to

become skilled police officers, to learn

how to handle incidents without mak-

ing it worse than when you came there.

Standards of “Good Policing”

The policies of a police department reflect

the standards of behavior for the officers

serving in that department. To identify what

is “good” policing and what is “bad”

policing, one must look to the standards and

boundaries of behavior set forth by the

department in its policies. When the

“…[O]fficers

should not]

settle for

behavior [they]

can get away

with without

violating

the…law,

but…should

have] a

standard of

good police

work…to

aspire to.”

28


discussion turned to this issue, Mr. Williams

noted, “The law defines the outer param-

eters [of police authority and behavior], but

policy defines the boundaries.” The impor-

tance of departmental policy as a factor in

examining abuse of police authority, or con-

versely “good” policing, was acknowledged

by several of the participants.

In conjunction with this concept of depart-

mental policy as a means of establishing a

standard of behavior is the role of the su-

pervisor in enforcing these standards.

“[T]here’s a presumption in the…dis-

cussions I’ve heard so far that the supervi-

sor plays an important role in the regula-

tion of police behavior. And presumably,

that good supervision means that you’re

going to have a lot less behavior outside

the bounds of [departmental policy]”

(Professor Mastrofski).

As Professor Worden put it:

The notion that we could impose some-

thing other than, and perhaps higher

than, a legal standard, some standard

of…professional competence or crafts-

manship, if you will. [And] it’s not just

supervision; it’s also management.

But conceive of the problem as not sim-

ply taking steps to detect abuses of

authority and sanction abuses of author-

ity, but more positively to and affirma-

tively to establish standards of profes-

sional or competent policing. We may,

at the same time, do as much to stem

bad policing if…we said this is the way

to do a good job. [Then] we may make

it less likely that officers do a bad job

[because] I suspect that many of the

officers who engage in these abuses of

authority are not fundamentally bad

people looking to act in bad ways.

[However, they] may need some guid-

ance and constructive support and so

forth.

Methods of Rewards and Recognition

Commissioner Frazier suggested, “A pro-

motion is a reward,” and this is true in the

majority of police departments. Promotion

to a higher rank has always been a tradi-

tional means of reward and recognition at

the departmental level. Commissioner

Frazier suggested adapting the promotion

system to “fit” the kind of officer whom

the department wishes to reward. This is

done by tailoring questions for the oral

examination to the specific officer’s work

experience, such as with the Police

Athletic League facility.

However, others noted that promotions are

not available to all officers. In these in-

stances, a less formal means of recogni-

tion for an officer who is doing a good job

may be even more meaningful and appro-

priate than a promotion. Professor Worden

suggested that sometimes having a super-

visor simply take notice of an officer who

is doing a good job and letting that officer

know that his or her work and effort is

recognized (an “attaboy”) can improve

morale. Professor Worden suggested:

…[S]ometimes when I talk to police of-

ficers in my classes, they say, “Yeah,

you know, just an attaboy makes me

feel good, makes me feel like I’ve done

a good job.”

And I’m not sure whether we haven’t

underestimated the value of just com-

mendations, being held up as some-

one whose work might be emulated.

That might be a part of being a coach

and a mentor,…that is, identifying

“…[W]e could

impose

something other

than, and

perhaps higher

than, a legal

standard,

some standard

of…professional

competence or

craftsmanship.…”

Police Foundation

29

officers who are doing what you want

them to do.

[We should] not only prais[e] them, but

hold…them up for others as role

models to follow, which might,

ultimately, affect the culture of the

organization.

This informal, frequent recognition of ex-

emplary police work not only rewards the

officer who is being recognized but also

serves to reinforce the high standards of

professional behavior that a department

encourages its officers to achieve.

In addition to the rewards mentioned, po-

lice chiefs were curious about what meth-

ods of reward rank-and-file officers would

consider to be satisfactory. They suggested

that the national survey or the upcoming

rank-and-file and supervisory focus groups

address this issue, and that the chiefs be

informed of the officers’ responses in or-

der to consider the officers’ suggestions for

implementation.

Deterrence of abuse of authority may not

be achieved solely through rigorous en-

forcement of departmental policy or

through harsher disciplinary measures for

the violation of such regulations, but also

by cultivating “good” policing skills in

officers, by instituting a higher standard of

professional conduct, and by providing

positive reinforcement for exemplary

conduct.

At the training level, officers need to be

provided with the necessary tools to carry

out their responsibilities. If they are not,

one should not be surprised when officers

resort to relying only on their authority

to arrest, even when this approach may

not be the most effective solution to a

problem. As Professor Worden said, “There

might be other approaches if you have

other tools. And if the tool is the civil law,

providing that you are trained and learn

how to use that properly, then that might

expand [the officers’] range of options.”

In addition to the provision of more ex-

tensive training, it was suggested that de-

partments consider establishing a higher

standard of professional conduct than is

dictated by the law. Encouraging officers

to achieve a higher standard of conduct

and professionalism may decrease the like-

lihood of officers abusing their authority

and engaging in misconduct. Making policy

changes that address prevention of abuses

of authority and misconduct is a task that

falls on the department administrators and

managers. However, simply establishing a

higher standard of professionalism is not

enough. This standard must be effectively

reinforced through adequate recognition

and reward by midlevel superiors.

These line superiors have the most con-

tact with rank-and-file officers on a daily

basis; therefore, these supervisors must be

diligent in their efforts to positively rein-

force this standard of conduct in their of-

ficers. Supervisors should make all efforts

to acknowledge exemplary conduct, “that

is, identifying officers who are doing what

you want them to do, and not only prais-

ing them, but [also] holding them up for

others as role models to follow” (Professor

Worden). Reward and recognition, both

formal (i.e., promotion) and informal (i.e.,

a slap on the back), are key elements in

motivating officers to practice “good”

policing.

The panelists agreed that this combination

of training officers with the proper skills,

“Reward and

recognition,

both formal

(i.e., promotion)

and informal

(i.e., a slap on

the back), are

key elements in

motivating

officers to

practice ‘good’

policing.”

30


encouraging officers to achieve a higher

standard of excellence, and rewarding

exemplary conduct should decrease the

likelihood of officers abusing their author-

ity or engaging in misconduct.

Also, to improve policing services and to

reduce abuses of authority, departments are

beginning to recruit slightly older individu-

als because they believe that people with

more life experience may be better

situated to exercise discretion effectively.

Conclusion

Most of the themes and questions raised

by this group of police scholars and ex-

ecutives were addressed again in subse-

quent focus groups of rank-and-file police

officers and police supervisors, with inter-

esting similarities and differences. Many of

their concerns and specific experiences

were incorporated into the survey

questions and were drawn on during the

analysis and writing of the final report.

1. The quoted portions of this appendix have been edited sparingly to enhance readability whilemaintaining the speaker’s voice.

Police Foundation

1

APPENDIX C


OF RANK-AND-FILE

POLICE OFFICERS

OCTOBER 20–21, 1997

Rosann Greenspan

David Weisburd

Edwin E. Hamilton

2

Rank-and-File Police Officers


Defining Issues of Police Authority: What Is Professional Conduct? .............................. 4

Handling Situations That Challenge Police Authority: Rules and Practice ..................... 7

Officers’ Perceptions of the Extent and Nature of Abuses of Authority ......................... 8

The Role of the Media 8

The Extent of Abuses of Authority 9

The Forms of Abuses of Authority 10

Abuse of Authority and Community Policing................................................................. 11

Community Policing and the Expanding Authorityand Responsibility of the Police 11

Community Policing and the Potential for Corruption 14

Departmental Structure and Community Policing 14


The Effect of Race and Ethnicity 15

Race and Community Policing 19

The Culture of Policing.................................................................................................... 19

“Us-versus-Them” Mentality 19

Code of Silence 23

Solutions ........................................................................................................................... 31

Agency Procedures for Dealing with Abuse of Police Authority 31

Rewarding Good Policing 32

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 34

Police Foundation

3

C

Introduction1

In selecting police departments for partici-

pation in the two panels of police offic-

ers—one of rank-and-file officers and one

of supervisors—we established a set of cri-

teria to guide the process. Our goal was to

achieve representation from various types

of departments, as characterized by their

style of policing, with attention to size of

community served and region of the coun-

try. We began by using our own expertise

as well as by consulting several colleagues

to develop a list of police departments that

are particularly known for either commu-

nity-oriented policing, problem-oriented

policing, or traditional policing. As the list

grew, we attempted to ensure that all re-

gions of the country were represented. Hav-

ing reviewed and refined the selections,

we then categorized them by size of popu-

lation served and region of the country. In

this way, we derived a list of 24 depart-

RANK-AND-FILE

POLICE OFFICERS

ments, representative of all regions and

sizes. Half were assigned to the rank-and-

file group, and half to the supervisory

group. In the end, 11 departments partici-

pated in the rank-and-file focus group, and

another 11 departments participated in the

focus group of supervisors.

To guide the participating police departments

in selecting representatives to participate in

the rank-and-file focus group, we provided

the chiefs with a list of suggested criteria.

We asked them to choose an officer with

5 to 10 years of experience. We asked

departments that were selected for their

orientation toward community- and prob-

lem-oriented policing to choose officers from

those units. We asked departments that were

selected for traditional policing to choose

officers from specialized units such as

narcotics or gangs who have considerable

contact with community residents.

Eleven

departments

participated

in the rank-

and-file focus

group.…

4


The 11 officers from all regions of the coun-

try who participated in the rank-and-file

focus group ranged in experience from

3 years to 15 years, with an average of

10 years of experience as police officers. As

we requested, their assignments included

community- or neighborhood-policing units,

problem-oriented policing units, and gang

and narcotics units.

The rank-and-file focus group was moder-

ated by Rhoda Cohen, survey director for

the project, under contract with the Police

Foundation from Mathematica Policy Re-

search, with the participation of Dr. Rosann

Greenspan, Research Director, and Earl

Hamilton and Kellie Bryant of the Research

Division of the Police Foundation. The fo-

cus group met for two days: from 9:30 A.M.

to 5:00 P.M. on October 20, 1997, and from

9:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on October 21, 1997.

The officers discussed a range of topics with

a set of questions to guide each topic. The

broad categories included a definition of

police authority, the nature of the problem

and their concerns, the effect of community

policing on the abuse of authority, the soci-

etal factors that affect police authority, the

culture of policing, and what can be done.

In addition, the officers pretested the first

draft of the upcoming national survey. They

provided valuable input by reviewing and

reacting to each question in the first draft of

the survey instrument and by making gen-

eral and specific recommendations.

The participants worked hard, grappling with

some of the most difficult and personal is-

sues they face in policing. We were grateful

for their thoughtful and frank conversation.

We were surprised, as they were, by the

degree of consensus among them on many

different issues.

Defining Issues of Police Authority:What Is Professional Conduct?To explore how contemporary police view

the boundaries of police authority, we

asked participants to discuss what they

consider appropriate and inappropriate

conduct in their exercise of authority. Their

responses quickly turned to a thoughtful

discussion of the sources of both the for-

mal definition of good conduct and a per-

sonal sense of what is good conduct. One

officer started off the conversation by again

posing the question in different ways:

What is professionalism? What are our

expectations of ourselves? What is the

expectation of the citizenry of the law

enforcement agency that works on their

behalf? [H]ow is it that we ought to act

and behave? How is it that these things

are appropriate or inappropriate, or

right or wrong, or good or bad?

The officer answered that, for him, the

definition of appropriate conduct begins

with his own sense of right and wrong,

but it does not end there:

I think that I am generally guided by

my own sense of what is right and

wrong. In other words, my own per-

sonal view of what is moral or immoral,

what’s right and wrong.…What be-

comes a challenge for me is how I be-

have in very difficult circumstances,…

how I behave in cases where people

hate me, [and] how I behave in cases

where people want to kill me. So how

do I keep from misbehaving? How do

I keep from doing things that are wrong

inherently, either morally or criminally?

And so that is a huge challenge…on a

daily basis, not just for the individual,

but, I think, for the organization.

“…I am

generally

guided by my

own sense

of what is

right and

wrong…my

own personal

view of what

is moral or

immoral.…”

Police Foundation

5

Another officer suggested that the source

of the definition of acceptable and unac-

ceptable behavior must be society and that

the boundaries of appropriate conduct,

therefore, change as society changes:

I think that we as police officers are

guided by what society says is accept-

able and is not acceptable. Thirty years

ago [in] law enforcement, certain

actions were acceptable, where[as]

today’s society has decided that those

things are not acceptable. As a result,

…my definition of acceptable behav-

ior is what society says the rules are for

us. Twenty years from now, law en-

forcement will probably be different be-

cause society will have said that force

can go this far—that professionalism

means x, y, or z.

However, he agreed that one’s personal stan-

dards were also relevant: “I think within that

boundary, then we rely on our own per-

sonal moral and ethical ideas to define and

guide that.” That officer later modified his

response: “I think when I said about society

deciding what is acceptable, I think I didn’t

use a correct term. I think it’s the commu-

nity in which we live [that] decides that.”

A third officer raised the interesting sug-

gestion that society’s standards are too low

and that unless a higher, personal moral

standard is applied, force will be exercised

in effecting an arrest when it may be pos-

sible to use language to gain compliance:

I think that society in general is taking

a very dangerous trend in some of the

things [that] are morally acceptable,

some of the things that are socially

acceptable.…

Society says that I can effect the amount

of force necessary to effect the arrest.

In other words, society has given me

the green light to use some degree of

physical force in order to control an

individual. And I know that I can do

that. And there may be something want-

ing me to do that [because] this indi-

vidual has provoked me to some de-

gree in which I have the option of ex-

ercising some force. But I know that if

I can talk rationally to this individual

and still gain compliance, then I should

probably take that route or accept that

as an alternative, as opposed to using

some degree of physical force.

This comment turned the discussion to the

participants’ definitions of professional

conduct. One officer suggested that key to

professional conduct is treating each indi-

vidual with respect:

…[B]eing professional is about respect

…whether you are talking to the presi-

dent of the United States or whether

you are talking to Joe the hobo.…Every-

body has a story and [people have] their

own shoes.…Just [as] I could in no way

do what the president does, there is no

way I could do what the hobo does.

The hobo would teach me how to sur-

vive, just [as] the president could teach

me a bunch of other things.

Picking up on the idea that attention must

be paid to the individual, another officer

emphasized the importance of learning

about the individual situation:

You have to learn what the situation is

and the background behind that prob-

lem. You have some police officers—

they are so gung ho—[who] bust in the

“…[W]e as

police officers

are guided

by what

society says

is acceptable

and is

not acceptable.”

6


house and it’s so much the profanity

and it’s so much this. They never know

what the environment as far as the fam-

ily [is], what’s going on in there. Social

issues: father could be laid off, the

mother has…five kids, the father is frus-

trated because he doesn’t have a job

so he starts drinking, and that’s when

the domestic violence comes in.…Good

police need to focus more on being pro-

fessional, finding out what the prob-

lem is, and the bad police officers need

to think some time before they are so

gung ho.

Later, another officer expressed the diffi-

culty of entering a situation like the one

just described and explained how, despite

an officer’s good intentions, the situation

is interactive, and the individual may have

a pattern of using violence caused by poor

oral communication skills that may make

it very difficult to avoid the use of force:

[S]ome people…have grown up in envi-

ronments in which their oral communi-

cation skills are horrendous. The only

way in which they know how to resolve

conflict—express their emotions and feel-

ings—is by getting physical. They beat

their wives; they beat their kids; they beat

the dog. That is how they express them-

selves. If the dinner was too cold, they

smack their wife and that tells her the

dinner was too cold. The kids are mak-

ing too much noise in the other room;

he gets the belt and just starts beating

the kids to let them know that they are

drowning out his football game in the

living room. So for this guy to all of a

sudden be a human being and treat you

any differently [from how] he treats his

family, once you go into his living

room,…is a very difficult thing to do.

Another officer suggested that officers un-

der stress in their personal lives will en-

gage in misconduct, and she suggested that

very young officers may also have such

problems: “[Y]ou also have babies coming

on. I’m talking about 19 to 20 years old.

Can carry a gun but can’t take a drink.”

In contrast to an earlier suggestion that

standards of acceptable conduct have low-

ered, one officer explained how policing

has changed over the decades, how a re-

form chief in his city in the 1980s played a

role in changing the face of policing. Until

that time, police violence was the norm:

…[B]eing a child of the ’60s, a teen-

ager of the ’70s, and an adult of the

’80s, I watched the…police department

go through the change. In the ’60s,

there was no accountability whatsoever.

Same thing in the ’70s. [In] the ’80s, the

department really started changing its

face. Twenty years ago, it was accept-

able if you got a burglar call, the bur-

glar was shot, plain and simple. There

were no questions asked. [An officer

from another department across the

country agreed. The first officer con-

tinued.] We got a chief…[name omit-

ted] came in. The face of the police in

[name omitted] changed.…In the

’70s,…you got stopped, [and] you went

into a panic because you knew…some-

thing bad is going to happen to me.…

And they could walk up and basically

knock the hell out of you.…There was

no internal affairs in [name omitted]

until 1978.

Another officer, agreeing that standards

have risen, that “police operated differently

in a different era,” suggested that the

Rodney King case had a big impact on

“Good police

need to focus

more on being

professional,

finding out

what the

problem is.…”

Police Foundation

7

police accountability—educating the pub-

lic about the limits of police authority, in-

creasing civil litigation, and elevating re-

cruitment standards:

[E]verybody, I think, is operating now

under the post–Rodney King era, in

which people are probably more aware

of their rights and the limits in which

police can actually do their job. And

that holds police to a great degree ac-

countable for their action. I think de-

partments have come into great civil

liability in that they cannot afford [any

longer] to hire the six-foot-four, 300

pounds, police officer [who]…couldn’t

pour water out of a bucket without

getting most of it on him. But he could

kick butt and take names.

Summing up the sources of the definition

of the limits of police authority, of what is

acceptable conduct by the police, this of-

ficer noted that, “Your morals are guiding

you, the department is guiding you: policy,

rules and regulations, society.”

Another officer suggested that an impor-

tant concept that had been left out of the

discussion was…“discretion. How much

discretion you can use, and when to know

how to use the word discretion.”

Another officer offered what for him was

the key to what makes a good police

officer,…“compassion. If you have the abil-

ity to feel, you are going to care about that

person. I don’t care if an officer has

30 years on the force, if you haven’t devel-

oped that compassion, you are useless as

a police officer.”

Handling Situations ThatChallenge Police Authority:Rules and PracticeThe moderator asked the participants to

discuss the appropriateness of police be-

havior in a scenario in which abortion pro-

testers refused to leave and were force-

fully picked up and dragged to a paddy

wagon. One officer responded by describ-

ing his own experience with demonstrators

involved in a newspaper strike. He explained

how he defuses such a situation:

If I am on a line,…I will ask, not the

ones who are hollering at me so much,

but someone next to them, what are

[you] guys really fighting about?…[A] lot

of times the police—the rank and file

as we are—don’t know what the real

issues are. So I will ask what is the prob-

lem? Then after they explain, I let them

know that I understand. Then I tell them

that these are the rules: you just stay

back there and I will leave you alone.

Most of the time—I am telling you 95

percent of the time—they go, “Cool,

cool.” And they will protect me!

As these officers reminded each other re-

peatedly over the two days, “The bottom

line is officer safety. We want to go home.”

Asked to relate situations where they had

to deal with challenges to their authority,

the officers responded by providing a range

of stories in which they had acted by us-

ing less force than might have been per-

missible. One officer described how he had

avoided a potentially volatile situation:

We had the…shooting,…emergency

services had to go through a door, and

“E]verybody…is

operating now

under the

post–Rodney

King era, in

which people

are probably

more aware of

their rights

and the limits

in which police

can actually do

their job.”

8


they had to shoot her because she came

at them with a knife. Right away, we

are the bad guy. I was going down to

court one day on the subway and right

away, they said, “You shot grandma,”

and this and that. I had three or four

people looking at me like I did some-

thing wrong. How should I react to that?

Maybe if I was a young cop,…came

from a nice neighborhood, and was a

gung-ho kind of guy, I could have es-

calated that on the train and then I

would have had a riot situation. Or I

may have had to lock up some-

body.…So, I took it; I swallowed a little

bit of my pride; I tried to act as profes-

sional as I could without escalating the

problem.

Another stated that it is because of his com-

passion that he takes “that extra second”

to de-escalate a situation, “by letting them

vent first and then asking what is wrong.

The first thing they say is that I don’t care,

and I tell them that, yes, I do care. Tell me.”

Another officer told a story of being called

on a domestic disturbance where the indi-

vidual had left in a car. To the surprise of

the officer and his partner, the individual

jumped out of his car and ran when they

pulled him over. “We are thinking it is just

a disturbance, so why would the guy run?”

They chased him into a field, where he

pulled out a switchblade. “He told us he

was going to stab both of us in expletive

terms.” The officers spent five minutes yell-

ing back and forth, trying to get him to

drop the knife, which he finally did. “Would

other officers have handled it differently?

Sure. There could have been a shooting.

We could have been hurt. But I think that

how we dealt with it [was by] not person-

alizing the question of authority.…It is not

a personal issue whether you hate me. You

may not like what I am doing, but it is the

community who dictates what the laws are,

and I am simply following through with

that.”

One officer shared a story, “not a dramatic

story whatsoever,” where he learned the

limits of his authority. He responded to a

situation where there was a group of

people playing basketball, and he wanted

to speak to someone on the court. He

asked another guy, “Hey, run over there

and get that guy and tell him to come over

here.”

Well, the guy told me to kiss his be-

hind; that’s not his job. I thought, just

me arriving in uniform, I could direct

people and just tell this guy what I

wanted him to go do for me. And that

guy told me where to get on and where

to get off.…I was verbally assaulted.…

And it made me really think, and it

really does.…[M]y authority only goes

so far;…I do not dictate [to] people or

control lives [as] I think I do—or [as]

the uniform makes me think I do.

Officers’ Perceptions of the Extentand Nature of Abuses of Authority

The Role of the Media

Expressing a sense that the media, in re-

porting instances of abuse, influence the

public to distrust all police, one officer said,

“[E]veryone of us gets labeled for every

problem from every city.…When you re-

spond on a call, [then] you just did every-

thing that they heard of for the past 10, 20,

30 years of their life. You just did it, you

represent it, and they’re going to take it

out on you in those cases.”

“You may not

like what I am

doing, but it is

the community

who dictates

what the

laws are, and

I am simply

following

through.…”

Police Foundation

9

Another put it this way, “And as far as the

Detroit deal—yeah, we caught heat behind

that; L.A., we caught heat behind that; and

New York, yeah, we caught heat behind

that.”

Another said, “[N]o matter what we do in

[name omitted],…or anybody else does, I

have to answer for it. If I go to Portland,

Oregon, to see family, say for example,

they’re going to question me about what

happened in Detroit, and I have no

connection.…And if I take the approach

that the police were right—they were not

wrong—I better be ready with my ticket,

my keys, whatever way I came, because

I’m going to take some heat for that.”

Some also expressed concern about the

accuracy of media reports. Because they

tend to present only the dramatic event of

police violence, the media neglect the situ-

ation that precipitated the violence, offer-

ing what some felt was a distortion of the

facts:

…I was giving an example earlier with

the situation in Baltimore. I didn’t see

the 20 minutes of footage that occurred

before that, in which the three officers

are around this guy—please drop the

knife; please drop the knife. I just saw

the 10 seconds leading up to the point

right before they shot and killed the

guy. I know there was more to the story,

but the average person [who] looks at

that particular situation, that’s what they

see.

One officer suggested that, although in her

city the police receive both bad and good

media coverage, the general trend is to

report only the negative stories about

police, and in that way, the truth is

distorted. “You still don’t hear about the

bulk of us who are out there doing [our] j-

o-b because we believe in what we do.…”

Another felt that police departments needed

to be more media savvy:

I think that we are hurt as law enforce-

ment by our lack of communication

with the media.…But I think our lack

of willingness to be honest with the

public—and maybe not the lack of will-

ingness, but the lack of know-how, to

perceive that [lack] in the media is what

is damaging us—not necessarily our

actions but our inability to relate that

to the mass public.

The Extent of Abuses of Authority

There was general agreement that a small

percentage of officers abuse their author-

ity. One officer referred to the “95/5 rule,

in that 95 percent of the people on the

department are doing what they’re sup-

posed to do, doing a good job, and…there’s

this 5 percent that cause all the problems

in your organization.” And 5 percent be-

came the rule of thumb generally accepted

by the participants. At least some felt that

these abuses were generally of a relatively

minor nature:

I think on my part, that the 5 percent

[who cross the line into abuse of au-

thority] are usually guys [who] are in

violation of some sort of policy proce-

dural error, in that they didn’t take a

report, or they failed to administer first

aid when the situation called for it.…

Of that 5 percent, you probably have 1

percent that actually goes out and vio-

lates someone’s rights.…I don’t think

that 5 percent…that are in trouble

within the departments are actually tak-

ing bribes and shaking people down—

“You…don’t

hear about the

bulk of us who

are out there

doing [our]

j-o-b because

we believe in

what we do.…”

10


you know, abusing authority. I think

it’s more [that] this guy just comes to

work, his uniform is bad, or he had

alcohol on his breath today, or what-

ever.

One officer suggested that it takes matu-

rity for an officer not to become jealous

when he sees a drug dealer driving a nice

car: “And then that’s when he starts doing

illegal searches, not turning in the money,

not turning in the drugs.…And that’s what

some of these officers are doing. They’re

putting their hands in the cookie jar,…

they’re being caught, and the media [are]

feeding off of it.”

Another expressed his distaste for officers

who engage in illegal activity:

And the reality is there’s nothing that

turns your stomach more or that’s more

distasteful than to find an officer [who’s]

doing something illegal.…[W]e had

some officers in [name omitted] [who]

were breaking the law,…were shaking

down people.…Not only was it illegal,

but it was just so personally offensive.…

You want to arrest them, but you also

just want to throw up at the same time.

The Forms of Abuses of Authority

When the officers were asked what kinds

of inappropriate behavior they were most

concerned about, they mentioned a range

of behaviors. One officer described “a

trend” in his department of “narcotics traf-

ficking,” by officers who fit “the so-called

new prototype police officer, college edu-

cated, passed all the tests, background

checked out perfectly.”

A number of the officers expressed con-

cern about verbal abuse or a general lack

of respect by police officers in dealing with

the public. One officer suggested that he

found for himself that the solution is to

explain your actions to the people affected:

One of the problems that I think [is] an

issue with regard to police work is that

the public requests to be informed, and

the officer feels as if he has no obliga-

tion to inform the citizen as to what

he’s doing. I’ve found that I’ve elimi-

nated a large percentage of complaints

that I’ve had lodged against me and

just [had] an easier time of doing my

job by simply explaining to the indi-

vidual what it is that I’m doing.…You

find that [with] most police officers

[who] find themselves in trouble, it isn’t

because he’s shaking people down or

he’s taking bribes; it’s because he does

not…explain his actions in a lot of

situations.…That person is hyped up

and that person is really emotionally in-

volved. And now the officer’s emotion-

ally involved. And the next thing you

know, the officer says something he

wishes he could have grabbed back and

pulled back. You know, it’s the verbal

assault again, [which] the officer levies

against the citizen, that hurts him.

One officer indicated that the behavior he

is most concerned about as a police of-

ficer is “other cops [who] are bigots and

other cops [who] are brutal.” He expressed

concern that officers are placed in these

brutalizing situations without having rela-

tionships with police supervisors who en-

courage talking about what they are con-

fronting. He argued that “we’re putting a

lot of young people of all races and a

variety of different educational backgrounds

…into the worst possible environment, and

we’re just leaving them there.…And then

we’re all real surprised when the media show

“…[T]here’s

nothing that

turns your

stomach more

…than to find

an officer

[who’s] doing

something

illegal.…”

Police Foundation

11

up and they’re filming this person beating

the hell out of somebody.”

Abuse of Authority andCommunity PolicingMost of the rank-and-file officers who par-

ticipated in the focus group expressed be-

lief in the value of community policing.

They recognized that it expanded the tools

available to solve community problems, but

they cautioned about its potential for en-

couraging the community to place undue

demands on the police. They saw a poten-

tial for violation of citizens’ rights; they

doubted a management concern about

corruption. Most saw community policing

as involving a much greater commitment

of time and dedication than traditional

policing. As one officer put it, “If you don’t

put in 110 percent as a community officer

or beat cop or whatever, you’re not doing

your job; I don’t care what anybody says.”

Their conversation seemed to assume that

community policing and problem-oriented

policing are the future of policing—a real-

ity to which management and older offic-

ers must adapt—rather than an experiment

or a marginal activity that may disappear

or be deemed to have failed in time.

Community Policing and the

Expanding Authority and

Responsibility of the Police

The officers discussed a wide range of is-

sues that relate to the expanded role of

the police in community policing, to the

use of civil law, and to the effect of

community demands and expectations.

One officer told a rich story that was about

community policing and that demonstrates

both the close relationships between

police and community and the expanded

power of the police. He spoke of how he

developed a teen basketball league some

12 years ago in the inner-city neighbor-

hood where he was then assigned and still

is working as a community-policing officer.

The relationships he developed in the bas-

ketball league led to the development of

narcotics information and warrants, as well

as to a neighborhood “trespass affidavit

program” and other techniques such as

vertical patrol, which are all aspects of an

expanded police role under community-

oriented policing. In his words, “All these

tools were added to us for locations like

this so we could use [them] … in our daily

routine of patrolling.” The basketball league

continues to occupy much of his leisure

time to this day:

I went to a community meeting…in a

housing project, where blocks and

blocks of buildings were…drug in-

fested.…And the people were com-

plaining about drug dealers…hanging

out late at night, drinking on the cor-

ner, throwing garbage out the windows,

bringing garbage downstairs, boom

boxes, drag racing, fixing cars on the

street. It was out of control.…They were

yelling at me and screaming at me.…

So I started thinking of what I could

do. And I walked around, and on my

beat there was a local church.…I went

upstairs,…and I saw there was a small

gym.…I started a basketball league.…

I made out a few flyers.…I had to con-

solidate it to [ages] 10 to 14 because I

had too many kids coming.

Well, we built it up a little bit. Kids

would give me information—not that I

was looking for information, but they

were giving me information on certain

Most saw

community

policing as

involving a

much greater

commitment

of time and

dedication

than

traditional

policing.

12


places. We would target them ourselves.

I would pass the information to narcot-

ics. I would do my own search war-

rants. And little by little, we cleared up

each building at a time.…

We set up another program, called the

Trespass Affidavit Program, where we

have people in the building; then we

have the rent roll, so that if there were

people that were outside from other

areas coming to buy drugs—and I knew

there was a spot in one building—I

could grab them in the building when

I was doing a vertical.

I do a vertical patrol, [which] means you

go up and down a building and check

it. If I saw somebody coming out that I

didn’t know—because I knew people

on the block—and [those people]

couldn’t give me a good answer…take

me back to the apartment they were

visiting, they were placed under arrest

for criminal trespass.

Now, today, I have 12 teams still doing

it. I run the program from January to

June. It’s four hours a night of my own

time, but I have a good time, more than

the kids, but I can’t let them know that.

And I have 120 kids, and a 12-team

league. It’s still going strong.

Another officer described a recent program

to enforce a loitering ordinance. Police had

been using the tool of criminal trespass,

getting property owners to “post their

properties,” as in the above example, in

order to move “drug dealers and other

people.” But the targeted population “kind

of wised up to it and changed their tactics

a little bit.” They moved to a public park.

The tool now being used to move these

people has been “a very controversial or-

dinance.” The officer described it as “a real

difficult ordinance to enforce,” with “five

or six criteria in order to even write the

ticket,” suggesting there are easier solu-

tions than trying to enforce this ordinance.

But some of the public and a radio talk-

show host have raised concerns that “we

are just stomping all over the people’s con-

stitutional rights with this ordinance.”

But this expansion of authority also places

a great burden of responsibility on police

officers. As one community policing of-

ficer said, “[Y]ou, as a police officer, have

to wear many different hats: a fireman one

day, a lawyer another day, a doctor an-

other day, a marriage counselor one day,

a psychiatrist one day. It is amazing be-

cause we don’t go to school for that. We

don’t get paid for having all these degrees.”

Another community policing officer stated,

“[E]verybody’s always looking for the po-

lice to answer all their problems.”

A third put it this way, “We, as law en-

forcement, take responsibility for far too

much in our society.…And I think every

time someone comes to us, we feel it is

our responsibility to solve that problem for

them.”

Another offered, “I know we’re feeling…

just [an] overwhelming requirement to be

everything to everybody.”

There was intermittent discussion about

taking your work home with you, whether

such a move is unhealthy, what to do about

it, and what its effect on home life is, be-

cause the successful community-policing

officer is an individual to his community.

Officers admitted they gave citizens their

home phone numbers and received calls

“We, as law

enforcement,

take

responsibility

for far

too much

in our society

….[W]e’re

feeling…[an]

overwhelming

requirement

to be everything

to everybody.”

Police Foundation

13

at all hours: “It never turns off.” But the

most striking example was the following:

I’m down at the shore. I’m down there

the last two weeks in July and the last

week in August. I have a beeper. Well,

[it’s] a great invention, but community

leaders beep me. Community activists

beep me. People [who] have a prob-

lem in the park beep me. You know

why: S——, we didn’t see any radio

car tonight; S——, can you do some-

thing. Could you call up one of the lieu-

tenants at the desk and give him a heads

up [to] send a car over.

These expressions of the burdens of com-

munity policing precipitated a discussion

of the community’s responsibility in the

community-policing partnership: “I’m not

responsible for all the answers, and some-

times the community is.”

Another said, “[T]he problem is probably

going to come to you first.…But you’ve got

all these other resources to funnel every-

thing so…you’re kind of a liaison. And…you

deal with the whole family with the idea

that eventually you want to totally empower

that whole community so, in a sense, you

wouldn’t have to be there anymore.”

Officers also stated that at times they have

to explain to community members that

there are limits to their authority: “Can I

hit this house two doors down from you?

Probably, if I can get enough information

that gives me the legal authority to do it. I

can’t just go in there and just run through

this person’s house just because you say

that you think something’s going on.…

[T]here’s certain legal—there [are] certain

rules and regulations,…which I have to

follow.”

Perhaps most striking was the officers’

indication that a potential for abuse of

police authority comes directly from the

heightened community expectations and

the closer community–police contact and

relationship that occurs under community

policing:

But just an example of the possible

abuse, you get a person who lives in a

neighborhood, and [such people are]

in charge of a neighborhood watch pro-

gram. Or they’ve got a house [that] they

know [and that] they kind of get a little

concerned about. Now, it’s not a regu-

lar 911: they’re [not] shooting or there’s

[not] any kind of real problem. But they

begin this process because now they

have…the ear of the police because I’m

designated as the person that they can

call—not just a generic number, but

now there’s a face and a pager. And

they start calling me. Well, I sort of be-

come the innuendo police…the rumor

police. I…hear that so-and-so living at

the house is—you know, I think he

could possibly be doing a variety of

things. I said, well, none of those seem

to fit with what’s criminal…so maybe

in some cases it’s more of a neighbor-

hood personality issue than it is a crime

issue. And now I’ve got [these people]

in the community who [have] my ear

[and] who feel like I’m accountable to

them.…They’re demanding that I do

something.…That’s the key piece; [dis-

cretion] is being able to tell them—

which is nothing they’re going to want

to hear from me because they think that

Perhaps most

striking was

the officers’

indication that

a potential for

abuse of

police

authority

comes directly

from the

heightened

community

expectations

and the closer

community–

police

contact.…

14


I’m there to do what they want, not to

enforce the law or keep the peace—

[and] find…a way of telling them it’s

not something I’m going to be able to

deal with for you.


Potential for Corruption

Asked whether the closer ties with the com-

munity increased the risk of corruption, one

officer suggested that this was a mis-

perception held by police management and

some citizens:

That’s how these chiefs and higher-ups

think because…they’re behind closed

doors. They’re in their offices.…I deal

with a lot of store owners because they

give me things at the end of the year

when I have my championship game.…

I get donations that go right down to

the PA [Police Athletic] office, and I get

a receipt.… They’re afraid that we might

get hooked into something with these

store owners where—we might give

them protection…a slap if they’re do-

ing something illegal…in that commu-

nity area. And then people [who] live in

the community perceive this. And they

see that we’re hanging out with some-

body; right away we’re doing something

wrong. And this is why these chiefs and

everybody—they don’t want to hear this.

And right away, they want to put a bash-

ing on community policing.

Besides the potential for corruption from

legitimate commercial enterprises, the use

of vertical patrol raises some concerns

among police management because of the

potential for corruption by drug dealers

when officers cannot be observed by their

supervisors: “I [police administrator] don’t

want any cops going into buildings. Why?

Because they’re going to get involved in

something. Or maybe it’s easy for corrup-

tion. Right away, they’re corrupt. They’re

going to get into an apartment, or they’re

going to get…grabbed by one of the deal-

ers and maybe—let’s make a deal.”

Departmental Structure and

Community Policing

Some officers expressed concern that po-

lice management is not adapting to the

changing authority structure, namely the

expanded authority of the rank and file

under community-oriented policing:

You’re asking a quasi-military type or-

ganization with a very structured chain

of command, and you’re asking upper-

level and mid-level managers to relin-

quish some of their authority and some

of their responsibilities.…As a detec-

tive, I’m bypassing and eliminating the

middleman and going right to the top

with my plan and my solution, and

that’s a threat against everything that

you’re taught as a police officer.

Another suggested, “The problem seems

to be…the breaking down of the pyra-

mid…from staff to officer. There is a lot of

old-school thought…that the street officer

doesn’t really have the ability to create an

autonomous decision.”

And another said:

The micromanagement part was our

biggest foul-up in the system.…

[Command officers from the old school

didn’t believe in community policing.]

Just go out and lock people up…and

when you came up with ideas and

things you wanted to try,…they were

“You’re asking

a quasi-

military type

organization

with a very

structured

chain of

command, and

…upper-level

and mid-level

managers

to relinquish

some of their

authority.…”

Police Foundation

15

reluctant to give you the go ahead on

it.…If you still have those people [who]

are policing from the ’60s and the ’70s

with the same ideas…it’s hard to push

new ideas around them sometimes.

One officer suggested this ideal for super-

vision under community policing:

You have to have immediate supervi-

sors and mid-level managers [who] trust

you and trust your judgment and [who]

give you latitude to make decisions.

And even if you fail in your decision,

they cannot…micromanage. I guess

they have to allow you to be innova-

tive, to express yourself, to not be afraid

to come in with an idea and implement

that idea. I think that’s very important.

Others suggested that they encountered

problems, not with management, but with

veteran officers who are not serving as

community-policing officers: “[S]omething

that we’re experiencing right now is that

neighborhood officers are over here; pa-

trol officers are over here. And you’re kind

of looked at as this special group, and you

get to kind of adjust your hours.”

Societal Factors That AffectAbuse of AuthorityThe Effect of Race and Ethnicity

Although we considered that the topic of

race as a factor in police behavior—suspi-

cion, investigation, stops and searches, use

of force—was important to our consideration

of abuse of authority, we were uncertain

whether the participants would be willing

to talk openly about their perceptions. As

with all other topics addressed, we were

impressed with the apparent thoughtfulness

and frankness of the officers. We began the

discussion with a direct question that en-

gaged the group: Is it unfair to stereotype or

is it “smart policing” to know that people of

certain types—seen at certain hours in cer-

tain places—are basically up to no good?

This question led to a lively discussion that

began with an insistence on distinguishing

stereotyping from profiling, with the assump-

tion that stereotyping is bad, while profiling

is ethical, though its legality has recently been

limited. By the end, the two seemingly dis-

parate terms were comfortably conflated.

One officer suggested that profiling is “ethi-

cal to a certain degree, not necessarily…

right. But you have a good feel of whom

you are dealing with. I mean I can tell a

normal person—a normal student—be-

cause I deal with a lot of kids. If I see a kid

walking, I can pretty much judge what kind

of person he is.” But as he explained,

“We’re careful about stereotyping. The term

we use is profiling.” Several officers ques-

tioned the difference between the two

terms. Then one provided the working

definition in his gang squad:

The way in which we have the prac-

tice in our department, I should say the

practice in gang squad, to differentiate

between stereotyping and profiling, is

that to stereotype we go strictly…[on]

physical appearance. Profiling would be

the physical appearance, the location

in which the person is, and what [such

people] are doing in that location and

what others are doing around them.

Exploring the meaning of stereotyping and

profiling, one researcher described an ac-

tual incident where two black teenagers

driving around in a white neighborhood

were approached by two officers with their

guns trained to the back of the boys’ heads.

“You have

to have

immediate

supervisors

and mid-level

managers

[who] trust

you and trust

your judgment

and [who] give

you latitude to

make

decisions.”

16


Two African-American participants took the

lead in responding to the situation. The

first admitted that he had been the recipi-

ent of similar treatment, “I have experi-

enced the same things that you have ex-

perienced.” But he maintained the legiti-

macy of stopping someone at certain times

on the basis of a sense that they have “no

business being there,” because it is what

the residents of the neighborhood want:

I’m from his hometown. I understand

what you are saying. I have been on the

other end. I haven’t been a cop, as I say,

all my life. I have been stopped. I have

been stopped by white officers in mostly

white or predominantly white neighbor-

hoods. I understand that. I think there’s—

and I think everybody has been discuss-

ing this—a very fine line between ste-

reotyping and profiling. If it has a beak

and it quacks, it’s a duck. Regardless of

what it calls itself, it’s a duck.

If you are walking down [or] if I was

walking down that street,…I have been

stopped during the middle of the day,…I

don’t think that necessarily my actions

warranted a stop. But if I am…walking

down that same street at 3:00 in the morn-

ing when everybody else is asleep and

I had really no business being there, I

cannot justify my actions for being there.

I have no legitimate address I am going

to or coming from, and, therefore, I

warrant the police to stop me.

If I live in that neighborhood, I don’t

care what race he is or what ethnic

background he is, I want the police to

check that individual out and why he

is even there.

The officer expressed hope that the police

department is hiring better-educated and

more-compassionate recruits who have “an

understanding of things and can resolve a

situation without it resolving or ending in

conflict”—if only to limit lawsuits.

Another African-American participant re-

called that while “growing up in [name

omitted]”…he too “was stopped many

times.” But he noted, “One of the major

factors is the time, the era for which that

happened to you.” Like his colleague, he

felt that such stops based on “profiling”

are justified:

So…I tell the kids now, so what [if] you

get stopped. So what [if] you get pulled

over. So what? As long as you have all

your paperwork in order, which you

should have, there is nothing that an

officer can do to you as long as you

are in the right. If [an officer does], then

you have a legitimate complaint. If we

stop you and you have got all your stuff

together, hey,…Excuse me for stopping

you. I’m sorry that I delayed some of

your time. Okay?

A white officer suggested that sometimes

race is seen as a factor when it may not

be. He told a story that began:

…just after the Rodney King trial,

maybe the day after, my partner and I,

both white, we [are at] work in a pre-

dominantly black neighborhood. We

see a couple of guys in a car smoking

dope, so we roll up on the car. I go to

the driver’s side and say, “Hey, sir, I see

you are smoking dope. Put your hands

on the steering wheel. Don’t move.” He

is more or less buffered—I mean the be-

havior, what he is saying to me. He is

not indicating that he is compliant. He’s

uncooperative.

“…[T]here’s…

a very fine

line between

stereotyping

and profiling.

If it has

a beak and

it quacks,

it’s a duck.

Regardless

of what it

calls itself,

it’s a duck.”

Police Foundation

17

So I become a little bit more concerned

for my safety. It’s very low light, a

couple of guys in a car. We don’t know

who they are. They are not searched,

so I have them get out of the car. “Put

your hands on the back of your head,

and lock your fingers.” I grab hold of

his hands. “Now step out of the car.”

…I don’t know if he and his partner

are going to start shooting at us or what.

They step out. I go to handcuff him.

He physically resists it. He tightens his

whole body up. I am thinking—he kind

of starts crouching down. I’m waiting

for his hand to come off the top of his

head, to [go] into a waistband. I ended

up getting him cuffed up. We got the

dope. He was dealing marijuana out of

the car. They [were] smoking marijuana.

But we get in court several weeks later.

He says, “I saw what happened on TV.

I watched what the white police do to

black men.” He sees me walk up on

him, and he begins to see me in a par-

ticular way.

I begin to see him as a threat to my

safety. [When] we both sort of start look-

ing at each other as men in this way,

that’s not really good for either one of

us. I mean it’s good in a sense because

we’re not going to die, but it’s bad in a

sense that now I kind of see him as a

guy who is not a very nice person, and

I don’t know the man. He…starts maybe

seeing me as this racist, brutal, heavy-

handed white cop.

I have got to walk up on that car. But

one of the things I don’t have to like is

what happens to me because of what I

do, and what happens to people be-

cause of what I do [and] in terms of the

relationship we get in.…We don’t ever

have time to get to know each other.

Relinquishing the distinction, several offic-

ers agreed that “[s]tereotype or profile or

whichever word we choose to use…sort

of keeps us alive.”

Citing a Maryland study that suggested Af-

rican Americans are discriminatorily the

subject of traffic stops, we rekindled the

race discussion by asking whether police

engaged in racially discriminatory practices

or if this was a false perception held by

the minority community. The term “dis-

crimination” seemed more evocative than

did stereotyping or profiling. One officer

tried to refine when it was acceptable to

treat people by appearance, suggesting that

the standard should be: “I think it’s dis-

criminatory if I am judging somebody based

on something that they have no control

over.” Thus, returning to the earlier ex-

ample, he argued that “[y]ou are a teen-

ager; you’re black; you are in a white neigh-

borhood; you are driving. You have no

control over the color of your skin. For me

to stop you simply because you are

black…would be discriminatory.” He con-

tinued in this direction, “However, you are

a teenager who happens to be black, who

chooses to dress like a gang member, who

chooses to hang out with several other gang

members, who chooses to be tagging in a

neighborhood. Now I stop you. I think

there’s a difference. You had a choice.…

I think…we can base a lot about how a

person is dressed.”

Another officer suggested this approach

does not always hold up in court:

Then when I go to court, the kid [is]

wearing the gang attire, standing on the

…[S]everal

officers

agreed that

“[s]tereotype

or profile or

whichever

word we

choose to

use…sort of

keeps us

alive.”

18


corner or whatever. He’s got his mom

with him, his dad with him, and a lot

of family members. They have got a

lawyer, an American Civil Liberties

Union; they are pissed off. Then the

media [have] gotten in the middle of it

and [are asking], “So that’s good police

work? This just kind of seems a little

intrusive to us, officer.”

As a result, his department no longer con-

dones this activity: “[T]hey went the oppo-

site liberal extreme. Our chief told us that

if you see a kid who is dressed in gang-

bang attire [and] who is in the wrong neigh-

borhood at the wrong time, that’s not

enough to contact him.”

Another officer said her department also

would not permit such a stop:

We don’t have routine pit stops or rou-

tine core stops. I mean, I can’t assume

because you are wearing your hat back

with your pants back—they are falling

down—that you are out there selling

drugs. You might be a college-educated

person that liked that type of dress, so

we can’t assume that. We are held re-

sponsible for that kind of thinking.

The moderator cited a national poll that

reported that while 63 percent of whites

stated they had a great deal of confidence

in the police, only 26 percent of African

Americans felt that way. The moderator

then sought participants’ reactions. One

officer made these observations:

I can see why, though the people who

are black might be more inclined to

have less confidence in police because

police historically are predominantly

white.…I think white officers—those

that stereotype or those that have

discriminated—are more likely to dis-

criminate against black, Asian, or His-

panic people.

…I’ll give you an example. We’re sit-

ting around a table at a chief’s forum.…

I work in the black community. I have

got a black man sitting next to me who

is a leader in the black community. He

says there [have] been X number of

gang homicides on this street over the

period of the last couple of weeks, and

we need to do something about it. We

have got a white guy sitting across the

table who lives near one of the white

area high schools. He says, “Well, the

problem in our neighborhood is smok-

ing off campus. The chief is sitting

there. He’s [thinking], “Let’s see. We’ve

got people dying over here, and we’ve

got Mr.-let’s-not-have-kids-smoking

over here”.…How can you help but

have the disparaging sort of view from

the different racial populations about

police authority. I don’t see how you

can get away from it.

Another officer, also not surprised by the

poll, suggested that the strong police pres-

ence in minority communities, which have

traditional policing, contributes to the nega-

tive view of police:

[I don’t know if] the traditional way that

we do policing [is] reflective of every-

body’s department.…The majority of

police stations or policing, as it were,

are situated or centralized in predomi-

nantly black or minority communities.

Therefore, most of the police contacts

that occur during the course of a day

are involving blacks or people of color.…

Most of those contacts have to do with

enforcement, either that or the police

…[S]trong

police

presence in

minority

communities,

which have

traditional

policing,

contributes to

the negative

view of police.

Police Foundation

19

have been called in again to remedy or

resolve a situation.

Race and Community Policing

The view of the officer who saw a strong,

but negative, police presence in minority

communities was that community policing

can be expected to improve the confidence

level in the police of African Americans.

This view was shared broadly among par-

ticipants. As he suggested,

By seeing the police in a different light

and seeing them as not just people who

go in to enforce the law and to effect

an arrest, but [as] problem solvers and

facilitators in that they help guide and

direct people into situations—help re-

solve their problem—I think that num-

ber [26 percent] is probably going to

go up. It has no choice but to go up. I

mean,…the police are now helping out

as opposed to the bad guy [who] comes

in and just drags people out of a neigh-

borhood and takes them away.

One participant prescribed community

policing to improve race relations, with-

out actually naming it. He saw

…race relations improving with the

amount of police that you are able to

put on the street. The more police that

you are able to put on the street, the

more police officers will be out there

[and] be able to do one-on-one com-

munity involvement. There is no way

you are going to improve relations on

an amicable basis…when all your

officers are able to do is answer runs.

One officer who worked in community

relations saw the solution in expanding

communications, which is also a feature

of community policing:

You have certain cultural groups—be-

cause of where they come from—[who]

come to America. They have their own

fear of police. We [police] have to go in

and break down that fear, set up com-

munications, set up information, open

those lines of communication, [and] bring

them into the fold.

The Culture of PolicingIn seeking to understand how much the

culture of policing contributes to abuse of

authority, we focused on two aspects at-

tributed to police culture: (a) the “us-ver-

sus-them” mentality, with its premise that

police officers who are in constant contact

with problematic citizens tend to view all

civilians suspiciously; and (b) the “code of

silence,” in which police officers protect

(by not reporting) their fellow officers in

situations involving inappropriate or

abusive police conduct. We began by ask-

ing whether the participants believed there

was an us-versus-them mentality and

what its role might be in the abuse of

authority.

“Us-versus-Them” Mentality

One participant referred to a scholarly ar-

ticle that described the psychological and

physiological response to living with the

dangers of police work on a daily basis:

When you go out into the street and

you make contact with somebody on a

call or a car stop…you begin to see

people, anybody, anywhere, as poten-

tially a threat of death to you. So you

develop this vigilance for work: I’m

ready. I’m on. I’m prepared.…And then

what happens is [that] you sort of turn

that [approach] into hypervigilance.…

You’re always…looking over your

shoulder;…you’re a little more aware

“We [police]

have to go in

and break

down that

fear,…set up

information,

open those

lines of

communication,

[and] bring

them into the

fold.”

20


than the general public about dangers

that you encounter.…And then, over a

period of time, you [need] something

to check that. In other words, people

don’t get on the phone to 911 and tell

us how good their life is going;…they

get on the phone [to] tell us when things

are horrible. So those are the kind of

experiences that we have over a pe-

riod of time [that] can divide us. And

we may respect people.…We may

be thinking compassionately.…But

ultimately…you begin to see people as

a threat of death to you.

A number of participants acknowledged

that the us-versus-them mentality is a cor-

ollary of the requirement of their work that

they be vigilant at all times. It is an attitude

that never leaves many of them, on duty

or off. Two described experiences in

traveling to Washington, D.C., for these

meetings:

We were talking—this is ironic again.

We were talking the other day about

going in restaurants and…we kind of

[took] an unscientific poll. How many

of us sit with our back to the door as

opposed to sit facing the door? How

many of us read customers that come

in there? And we were talking about

keeping our eye on the cash register.

We’re almost expecting something to

happen.

Or in the cab. Everybody was talking

about [being] in a cab.…We’re in a city

we’re not familiar with. Get in a cab

with this guy. It’s the middle of the

night, and we’re driving, and, oh, okay,

he’s taking us somewhere to kill us. All

right. So what do I do now?

However, the participants felt that this vigi-

lance does not lead to problems. More se-

vere manifestations of the us-versus-them

mentality can cause potential problems.

Participants described a type of police of-

ficer who is intensely identified with his

role and who may be “the ones that don’t

make it”:

You’ve got a lot of guys [who] are cops

in the day.…They hang out with cops.

They talk about cop stuff. All they do

is cop, cop, cop, cop, cop. And those

are the guys [who] are in that hyper-

vigilance mode. These are the guys

[who] read gun magazines.…And,

you’ve got to wonder about that.

Conversely, one officer suggested that the

attitude described as problematic was more

common than the more-balanced attitude

that the participants were claiming, and he

implied that the participants may not be

all that different from the supposedly more-

extreme adherents of the us-versus-them

mentality:

There’s an over-identification with the

police role. In other words, police work

becomes your life in some ways. The

people who are here in this room—in

many ways in my experience—are the

exception. I mean, I know a lot more

people [who] are acting and behaving

in the ways that we are characterizing

than people who live and act and be-

have as we’re saying we do.

Comparing his life to that of his brother

the banker, one officer admitted to living

with an us-versus-them mentality:

[W]hen you’re bombarded with nega-

tive all day, pretty soon that becomes

“There’s

an over-

identification

with the police

role. In other

words, police

work becomes

your life….”

Police Foundation

21

your life, okay, because you are out

there doing it to save your life or save

the life of others.…But as a police of-

ficer, I have to be concerned with my

life and everybody else’s.

Another officer admitted not being so far

from the gun-loving officers characterized

earlier:

I agree with…your over-gung-ho

people with the gun magazine promot-

ing guns and this, that, and the other

thing. I like guns as much as the next

guy, but I’m nowhere near that. But I

do have something to say. In my expe-

rience, the [military] veterans are…

some of the best police.…They usually

find a common bond. Yes, a lot of them

come out of the chute a little too fast.…

But some of our veterans are some of

the best guys you can depend on.…

[W]e work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a

week, for a combination of 30 seconds

of pure, sheer terror that can come at

any unknown time. I can’t think of an-

other occupation that’s like that. That’s

where the understanding comes in.…

I’m asking you [the public] to sympa-

thize. You’re [the police] supposed to

be perfect, perfect…up to the point

where you make a minor mistake. Then

you’re held with a level higher, held to

higher accountability.

Thus, as the discussion progressed, it be-

came apparent that from the participants’

viewpoint, many police officers have the

more-negative version of the us-versus-

them mentality, and perhaps the original

distinction was overdrawn. This revelation

led to questioning whether the participants

felt they were the exception to the general

population of officers in their departments.

They joked, “Oh, I think so,” and “The

department will not send one of them to

Washington.” Because the participants con-

sidered themselves “exceptions to the rule,”

they were asked how they personally man-

aged to avoid the more-negative aspect of

the us-versus-them attitude. The partici-

pants credited their own personal integ-

rity—and often their religious or spiritual

beliefs—with being key factors in avoid-

ing those attitudes. They also suggested

involvement with positive people or ex-

periences, and humor. Typical comments

included these:

I think it is filtered out by how much

you are involved in other things other

than your job.…[Those who] are in-

volved in church…get to see the good

side of life. For most of us, kids suck

because the only kids we deal with are

kids who are problematic. I’m lucky

enough that I’m involved with the youth

group at our church. So I see the best

of teens also. And that kind of balances

things. If you don’t seek out the best in

[kids], all we are left with—with this

job—is the worst in [kids]. And you have

to actively do that, otherwise you will

become mental[ly] unstable.

I think in myself, anyway, [that] I have

a great appreciation for life after see-

ing death. You see people die [at] a

young age. You see so many things that

you see the worst in people and you

see the best in people. And you really

kind of balance it out.

You have to use every tool that you

can. Because of my demeanor, I use

humor to bring about some levity, to

“[W]e work

8 hours a day,

40 hours

a week, for a

combination

of 30 seconds

of pure, sheer

terror that can

come at

any…time.

I can’t think

of another

occupation

that’s like that.”

22


bring about some light in stressful situ-

ations. [It is] by no means demeaning,

but I try to bring about some light.

I feel the spiritual side. I know what

guides me because I would have

burned out years ago. I know how to

bow down to that. I know how to ac-

cept it. I know how to find it within

me. It’s what drives me. A lot of offi-

cers will not admit to a spiritual side

until it gets tested.

What does it take to humble you as a

police officer? It may be something as

simple as an old lady you’re giving a

ticket to who will give you her license

and say, “I need to come off the

road”.…Or it may take a kid whose

mother just got killed by his father, you

know. What is it going to take for you

to come back to reality and realize that

you’re just a cop? You’re just somebody

out here doing eight hours.

You have to keep that spirituality within

your heart because God is the one that

watches over you, protects you from

that unseen danger.…I tend to find

myself bringing that spirituality in the

community and that gets rid of that us-

versus-them because that’s when the

devil gets involved.

I’m going to take care of my family and

that’s one of the things. Here I’ve been

doing this job for 10 years and prior to

that, I didn’t have the sense or the feel-

ing in that very strong way. So that’s an

important point for me. Sort of a stake

in the ground in terms of taking care of

myself, taking care of my family.

While acknowledging that a number of

officers exhibit these more problematic

forms of the us-versus-them mentality, the

participants generally felt that type of of-

ficer does not remain very long in the po-

lice profession. Comments included these:

They’re the ones that don’t make it.…

Four or five years, burned out. They get

injured, get hurt.…And they’re the con-

stant revolving door of law enforcement.

Get hurt mostly.

The participants indicated the need for

more experienced officers to take a lead

in helping officers cope with the stress of

the job and their personal lives:

And you help the other police also with

that [seeking the best and not the worst

in the job].…You help other police of-

ficers. Because when they had a prob-

lem, their own personal, they’ll come

to you because they see you in a

certain light. And they see [that] you’re

always working with kids. You got some-

thing I can do with a kid.…So you be-

come a reference point for them.…And

I find it ironic that we, in community

policing, help the community. But what

happens to our problems?

We still have everybody [who] gradu-

ated [in] our class in the department,

and everyone is doing well and we

keep in touch with each other. [When]

somebody has a problem, we can call

one another.

Our department has a mentor officer

program. When new guys come on, the

training department looks at the old

guys [who] have been on a while like

we’re looking at one another here and

saying, you know, that guy is a guy

[who’s] doing something right.…They

take guys like me, and they pair me up

…[P]articipants

indicated the

need for more

experienced

officers to take

a lead in

helping officers

cope with the

stress of the job

and their

personal lives.

Police Foundation

23

with a brand new guy.…You just talk

about whatever interests him.…Of

course, new people want to know

about being a cop, and my job as a

mentor officer is to make sure that he

understands everything: how to be a

20-year veteran, how to retire from the

job, not how to make it necessarily the

year. FTOs [field training officers] will

take care of that. You’ve got to make

sure that they are human beings and

members of society for that entire

career.

Community policing was also seen as a

critical component in preventing the us-

versus-them mentality by allowing officers

the opportunity to have more positive con-

tacts with the community. As one of the

participants commented:

I think when you’re in control also, you

see the community in which you work

a little differently than a community

police because you’re in service. Okay.

The radio dictates your movements,

your time. The only time you’re in con-

trol is when you take a personal or

when you take lunch. When you’re in

community policing, you dictate what

happens. You control the pace.…Most

officers I’ve seen who come out of

patrol…[when] they come into a posi-

tion in community policing, they sit

back. Say, for example, in a situation

like this [the focus group] and it’s, “Oh.”

The sigh of relief. You’re in with people

[who] have education, [who] have a

home, [who] have interests other than

robbing a bank, taking drugs, beating

on kids, or whatever the case may be.…

If they were in service [patrol], what-

ever skills they have, now they can

come to surface. In other words, they’re

using what they have.…So that dimin-

ishes that us-versus-them because

they…get a chance to know a police

officer or know the community on a

first-name basis.

The participants agreed that all police of-

ficers exhibit some degree of an us-ver-

sus-them mentality—as a mechanism for

survival—but that attitude in a more ex-

treme form can cause problems with the

community’s perception of the police. Com-

munity policing may prove to be an im-

portant key for addressing the problem by

creating more-positive interactions with the

community that will, in turn, provide of-

ficers with a more-positive perspective on

the people they serve.

Code of Silence

The topic of the “code of silence” or “blue

wall of silence” generated more controversy

than any other topic discussed. The dis-

cussion began with a flat denial: “I’ve got

to tell you: there is no code of silence.”

However, even this naysayer before long

admitted to what amounted to a code of

silence, though he preferred to call it

“police subculture.”

At first, some held that the code of silence

was a media creation and was based on

isolated incidents that would negatively

stereotype the public’s perception of the

police. Others admitted it exists and poses

problems, but they suggested it is not as

pervasive as is sometimes depicted in the

media. The officer who denied outright that

a code of silence exists immediately de-

scribed something approximating such a

code for minor transgressions. What

concerned him was that people would

suggest such a code applied for criminal

activities by fellow officers:

Community

policing was

…seen as a

critical

component in

preventing the

us-versus-them

mentality

by allowing

officers the

opportunity

to have more

positive

contacts with

the community.

24


The code of silence is I take care of

you, you take care of me. Yes, I might

drive a drunk officer home. We may

overlook the minor things. They’re in

no way infractions upon society or other

police officers.…Good police officers

police other police officers. Nobody

does that stuff in front of me.…But the

media take that and run. Code of si-

lence. Code of silence.…I’ll protect just

about anything: your morals, your foun-

dation, your beliefs.…But I’m a crimi-

nal, and you’re going to look out for

me. No way. It’s just the opposite.…

So that code of silence…insults me per-

sonally. Its credibility.

Another officer stated, “[T]he blue wall of

silence, Louima thing, blue code of silence,

and everything else,…this is all stereotyped

in the media. Whatever the media see and

whatever they print, people perceive that

to be true.”

Others agreed that the media exaggerate

the wall of silence:

I think it does vary from department to

department, jurisdiction to jurisdiction,

but, in general, I think certain people

in the media or just certain people [who]

have been violated by the police would

suggest that it’s so pervasive that’s it’s

going on everywhere.…I’m not a fink,

but if it comes down to [my] getting on

the box [trial stand] lying for you or

[my] putting my family out into the soup

line, I’m not going to lie for you.

All it takes is one incident. One nega-

tive. And then the media come in and

they blow it into like that’s what goes

on every day, all day.

As the discussion continued, it became

apparent that much of the resistance to

admitting to the possibility of the wall of

silence resulted from the kinds of activities

that were permitted to stay behind the wall.

What kind of “police misconduct” was be-

ing ignored? Whether the term “police mis-

conduct” referred to officer violations of

minor departmental rules and regulations,

or to criminal violations committed by

officers, affected the participants’ perceptions

of the code of silence. The participants

consistently insisted that for them no code

of silence exists for incidents involving

criminal misconduct by a fellow officer.

One officer admitted he might turn his head

while his partner “smack[ed] a crook,”

though he would not tolerate stealing:

No, I’m not going to tolerate your steal-

ing in front of me. Okay. I’m not going

to tolerate your abusing your family in

front of me. Am I going to turn my

head while you smack a crook?…It

depends.…Then is my partner going

to tell on me? Maybe. Is the crook go-

ing to tell? Maybe. But that’s something

that I did.…I think it’s upon every of-

ficer, if he’s going to do something…is

it something that I’m going to get in

trouble for or is it something that I won’t

get in trouble for? If there’s a chance

I ’ l l be getting in trouble for it,

99 percent of the time I’m not going to

do it.

One officer described a rejection of the

code of silence in his unit:

If somebody has done something, our

unit has an understanding. Nobody lies

for nobody. You don’t do something

as my partner that I have to lie for you.

…If you are going to require me to lie

for you, then I don’t want you as my

partner…because now what the hell

…[P]articipants

…insisted…

no code of

silence exists

for incidents

involving

criminal

misconduct

by a fellow

officer.

Police Foundation

25

else are you going to require me to lie

for you over?

Another officer emphasized drawing the

line at felonies:

[T]hat’s a felony. There’s no cut and dry

when it gets to that point. If he puts

you in that line of fire, he’s not your

friend anymore. He’s not your part-

ner.…It’s not, well, you know, no

problem.…But once you cross that line

into felonies, you can forget it.…I don’t

know a cop out there [who’s] going to

go to prison for another cop.

Another suggested that there are those cops

who get involved and those who don’t,

and the dishonest cops know the differ-

ence: “The cops that are doing these kinds

of things…they know the cops [who] have

integrity [and] who are concerned about

their images.…As a result, they don’t pull

you into that.”

Some participants felt either it was their

duty to report even small departmental

rules violations, or at least they would not

cover for the violators if asked, because

participating in that way could, if discov-

ered, jeopardize their pay. That is, the cost

of upholding the code of silence could be

too high: “I’m not a snitch, and I’m not a

fink, but if it comes down to [my] getting

on the box [and] lying for you or [my] put-

ting my family out into the soup line, I’m

not going to lie for you.” Whichever posi-

tion was taken on whether to report such

infractions, the decision was generally

viewed as being at the discretion of the

individual. That discretion included

whether to report the violation to superi-

ors, to report only if asked, or to remain

silent to protect the officer. The following

dialogue between two of the participants

illustrates the minor rule violation dilemma:

[Officer 1] “Now,…my question to you

is what is your line? Are you saying as

far as, let’s say, a felony, that a fellow

officer would commit or [are] you say-

ing some minor rule or regulation? A

cop didn’t wear his hat.”

[Officer 2] “Tell the truth or get sus-

pended for 30 days without pay.”

[Officer 1] “It depends upon the in-

stance.”

[Officer 2] “No. It depends upon

whether or not I tell the truth or lie and

my family is put out and inconve-

nienced as a result of some indiscre-

tion or action as a result of you.”

[Officer 1] “It depends upon the inci-

dent. Are you going to tell on your part-

ner because he didn’t wear his hat?”

[Officer 2] “…well, we don’t have to

wear a hat.…”

[Officer 1] “You say you are required to

wear your vest.…Are you going to tell

on your partner because he didn’t wear

his vest?”

[Officer 2] “I’m going to hope my part-

ner doesn’t put me in that position, but

if my supervisor—”

[Officer 1] “Would you tell on your part-

ner if he didn’t wear his vest that day?”

[Officer 2] “If I would voluntarily go be-

fore my supervisor and say, [he] didn’t

wear his vest. No.”

[Officer 1] “Why?”

[Officer 2] “That’s not my position…if

the situation reversed, if the supervisor

came before me and asked me the ques-

tion, you know, I would have to de-

cide at that particular time, but I’m go-

ing to tell you here’s where it escalates.

“…[O]nce you

cross that line

into felonies,

…forget it.…

I don’t know a

cop out there

[who’s] going to

go to prison for

another cop.”

26


If the supervisor says, tell the truth or

do 30 days without pay. Well, he didn’t

wear a vest.”

The discussion suggests that for one of the

participants, his assessment of the serious-

ness of the incident and the possible con-

sequences (e.g., disciplinary action) of his

failure to report the incident were critical

factors to be considered in the decision to

“tell on your partner.” Similar points of view

were expressed by other participants, al-

though one participant felt that it was not

at the officer’s discretion. That participant

emphasized the need for the officer who

did not wear a hat or vest to be account-

able for that action and not to place a fel-

low officer in an awkward position when

questioned by a supervisor. Reactions to

the minor departmental rule violation ex-

ample included the following:

Where they [the public’s perception]

hold you over the barrel is they con-

stantly want to attack your level of dis-

cretion. They want to say, “Okay, you

wouldn’t tell on your partner for not

wearing his hat, not wearing his vest?”

So what’s to say that you’re not going

to tell on him for robbing a bank, tak-

ing a handful of money on a burglary

call out of the open door in back?

Whereas you’re susceptible to not turn-

ing [him in]…from wearing his vest or

wearing his seatbelt. What’s to say

you’re not susceptible for the thing?

Same thing might be susceptible for not

writing a traffic ticket when you blew

that stop sign yesterday. It was my dis-

cretion. It’s the same thing that makes

me take the driver home on a DUI [driv-

ing under the influence] rather than

arrest him.

Now, as far as…we have to wear our

hats if we’re in uniform.…So if I make

a run and a citizen drives by and sees

my partner without his hat on…and I

get questioned about it later on, I don’t

know. He may have had on his hat. I

wasn’t paying attention. Do I know for

sure? Maybe I do; maybe I don’t. Is it

going to affect my paycheck? That’s

what he’s [the participant] thinking. If

it affects your paycheck, yes [partner

was not wearing hat] because now

you’re affecting his livelihood. But if

it’s something as minor as that [violat-

ing the policy on wearing a hat while

in uniform], I don’t care about that.

If it comes down to something as stu-

pid as a hat, and we’re sitting next to

one another and the supervisor [asks],

“Was [the officer] wearing his hat?” It’s

up to [that officer] to say, “No, I wasn’t.”

And if [that officer] doesn’t, he wants

to make me lie over a hat? No, nega-

tive. I tell my supervisor the exact

truth.…I’m not going to lie for you nor

are you willing to require me to lie for

you.…No [it’s not discretion]. We po-

lice ourselves in that way because…if

anybody wants to make me lie for

them, then that’s somebody that I cer-

tainly do not want near me.…I’m go-

ing to tell the truth, and then that per-

son is no longer a part of whatever,

whether it [the incident] be minor or

major. And criminal violations are way

out. You don’t wait for somebody to ask

you over. If it’s a criminal violation,…you

take care of that [person] immediately

with your supervisor and that’s taken

care of.

“Where they

[the public’s

perception]

hold you over

the barrel is

they constantly

want to attack

your level

of discretion.”

Police Foundation

27

[Participant’s response to the comment

made above.] That’s why that term [code

of silence] is insulting to a good cop.

Any [officers who push] me in that line

of fire [criminal violation], they brought

on themselves. They asked for it.

The focus of the foregoing discussion was

a situation involving the violation of a mi-

nor departmental rule or regulation. We

wanted to find out the participants’ per-

spectives on situations involving more se-

rious (i.e., criminal) forms of police mis-

conduct. An example of a situation involv-

ing serious police misconduct was

suggested by one of the participants: “Or

use the popular one. The handcuffed pris-

oner [officer physically abuses prisoner].

That’s the most popular.”

Thus, we asked the participants to provide

their views on a situation involving a fel-

low officer whom they witnessed striking

a handcuffed suspect. The consensus

among the participants was that officer dis-

cretion, as a factor in the decision to re-

port the offense, would be totally elimi-

nated. In addition, some indicated that the

individual officer’s own moral code would

be a crucial factor in the decision-making

process. Typical comments included the

following:

I’m honest. I’m not going to bull here.

I’m telling you exactly the way it is be-

cause I don’t care. All right. I am not

going to,…let’s say, tell on my partner

about things—and I understand what

he’s saying—things that do not pertain

to my paycheck or to my life, my per-

sonal life. No, I’m not. But if there’s a

chance that it could come back and cause

stress and strife in my personal life, with-

out question [I’ll tell]. You hit. You know.

You should have done it when I wasn’t

there. All right.…For me, it’s better for

my partners [whom] I’ve worked with to

know that yes, if you do something ri-

diculous, I’m going to let it be known

because that keeps them in line and that

keeps me in line. Okay. And then there’s

no question.

No. You take me right out of the dis-

cretionary loop once you do that. If

somebody is in jail, and you decide to

give him a good crack, you took me

out of my discretion. You put me now

into—you forced me into—the role that

I’m already in as a police officer. Now

I’m forced to police you. You put me

in the line of fire.…So you’re account-

able at that point.

The attitude has existed here [his de-

partment] a number of years where you

don’t burn blue. The so-called bad cops

will put you in that position, and they

will try to rely on your loyalty. You see

me slap him. It’s like okay, you don’t—

in front of all the guys. Because of the

moral issue, do I say, “Yes, you did,” or

do I say, “No, I didn’t see.” It’s up to

the individual officer. You do something

criminal, [and] you put me on the spot—

indicted, you be a man and you handle

yours. Don’t force me to force you.

Certain lines I don’t cross. It’s an indi-

vidual thing.…But a lot of cases we

won’t come forward, but when the

department finds out and we’re put in

the line of fire, yes, you know it, we

know it.…But a bad cop will force you

to try to remain silent. He will put you

on the spot, and I don’t appreciate it.

I hate it.

[Y]ou are who you are and you are what

you are. The badge and gun only em-

phasize sometimes what it is that you

“…[A] bad

cop will force

you to try to

remain silent.

He will

put you on

the spot.…

I hate it.”

28


are as a person. You have your own

set of morals. And yes, the department

has [its] set and the society has [its] set,

but you yourself, when you talk about

code of silence, you know what you’ll

be able to do and what you’ll be able

not to do, and it’s up to you to make

that decision.

To provide further illustration of the per-

sonal dilemma that an officer contends with

in making the decision whether to report

police misconduct, one of the officers re-

called an incident that he was involved in

with a partner. In his discussion of that

incident, he framed his story in terms of

the earlier discussion of the code of silence

as a way to understand the personal chal-

lenges that an officer can face:

I had a partner when I first started work-

ing vice. On our way to one of the bomb

threats, my partner happened to see his

girlfriend in the car…with her boy-

friend.…I don’t know the girlfriend. I

don’t know the boyfriend.…I didn’t

know anything.…I had no idea what the

hell was going on. My partner says to

me, “Hey, that’s a friend of mine.…See

if you can pull them over so I can talk to

her”.…I pulled over. I got out. My part-

ner got out. And he got into a physical

altercation with this young lady. And so

I began to get out of the car to break this

up. Her boyfriend got into this alterca-

tion also. My partner’s gun was drawn,

and he feloniously assaulted both of them

with the gun.…He beat them. He pistol-

whipped them.…

Now, I’m standing there scratching my

head going, “Oh, shit. What am I going

to do?” Here this is my partner who is

watching my back many times, whom

I’ve gone through doors with…who has

gotten out and now he’s put me in this

situation. What the hell am I going to

do?

Well, the easy way for me to do it is to

shut up and sit back, and let the investi-

gation start. And let me see what I may

have to say. I was going to take that

approach until my partner called me

…“you can’t tell them what went on.”

And I said, “Wait a minute.” And I

started…[comment made by another

participant] [to say], “Is this going to

affect my house?” Yes. Because…if your

partner does something felonious and

you do not say anything about it…you

are in just as much trouble as your

partner.…

So I was going to be quiet until they

asked me. I wasn’t going to volunteer.

That’s the way a lot of officers do. They

[think], “Well, I’m not going to say any-

thing until they ask. If they ask me,

well, I’ll make a decision then.” Which

is what…[comment made by another

participant]…I did that until he called

me at my home and asked me.…In fact,

he demanded, “You can’t tell them what

went on. Man, I’ll be—I’ll lose my job.”

I said, “Wait a minute. If I don’t tell

them, I’m going to lose all those same

damn things that you’re talking about.

This wasn’t my girlfriend.…But you put

me there.” Which is what…[comment

made by another participant] is talking

about.…If you think, as an officer, that

you’re going to do something that’s

going to jeopardize your partner or that

you yourself could get in trouble for,

you better not do it in front of me.

“…[I]f your

partner does

something

felonious and

you do not

say anything

about it…you

are in just as

much trouble

as your

partner.…”

Police Foundation

29

Noting that the participant initially felt he

should wait for an investigation or until he

was questioned by a supervisor rather than

come forward to report the incident, we

asked if that was a common approach

among police officers. The perspectives the

officers brought were theoretical when

compared with the actual experience the

first officer related. Several officers spoke

of a higher standard to which police are

held. For example, “We don’t have—the

public doesn’t have those expectations to-

ward those people [people in private or-

ganizations]. [When] you look at us, we

are held to a higher standard.…And we

accept it…you have public accountability,

just like politicians. You have an account-

ability to the public.”

One participant said his approach would

have been immediately to call his

supervisor:

I would handle that differently.…And

there’s no right or wrong, but as soon

as that person committed that act, then

[it’s] up to the supervisor to make that

decision. My supervisor gets a call and

then he makes the decision…when [an

officer] hits somebody for no reason,

my supervisor is called. Everybody

waits right there and he can explain to

[the supervisor]. Because at that point,

when he pulls his gun out and pistol-

whips somebody for an illegal reason,

then he’s made my decision for me. I

have no more discretion.

Another officer felt it was “a tough call”:

I think [that with] the questions you’re

asking, we have a policy. As an obliga-

tion, you’re obligated to report this to

internal affairs to come and question

you with regard to that. And I think the

question is, are you protecting the code

of silence by—even allowing—know-

ing inevitably you’re going to go ahead

and break down? But are you, in a

sense, I guess, enforcing the code of

silence by waiting as opposed to…

knocking on the door. Hey, I got some-

thing to tell you? That’s a tough call.

Another officer invoked both integrity and

the higher standard to which the police

are held, which favor calling and report-

ing the incident:

But ultimately, your integrity is going

to be more important to you over your

career than your loyalty to one another

is going to be. And the public does hold

us to a higher level.…I mean, it’s [the

public] certainly [having] the expecta-

tion that we are not liars and thieves.

A frank discussion of the pressures of the

subculture of policing was offered by one

participant:

I’d say another thing…is the subculture

of police.…Subculture policing helps

hold that down. There’s a lot of guys

[who] would say things but don’t be-

cause they’re afraid to be chastised by

the people around them, the other

cops.…But let there be a snitch in the

department…and we absolutely hate

him. It’s the worst thing you want to

hear about.…Very few people…in that

subculture say, “Hey, wait a minute.

What would you have done?”…Oh, I

guess I would have done the same

thing. You’re danged right you’d have

done the same thing. That subculture

stops.…How you’re treated, how you’re

chastised, how you’re labeled. It’s a very

big thing in policing.

“…[A]nother

thing…is

the subculture

of police.…

[L]et there be

a snitch in the

department…

and we

absolutely

hate him.”

30


The discussion made apparent that a code

of silence does exist in the police subcul-

ture and could place pressure on an

officer’s deciding whether to report an in-

cident involving serious misconduct. The

officer may consider not only what his or

her own morals are, but also how fellow

officers will view his or her decision. Of-

ficers who report on fellow officers may

be “chastised” or “labeled”:

If you place an officer in a position

where he would have to either lie for

you or face alienation by coming out.

We have one guy that busted…our TAC

[tactical] unit, but to save himself.…That

[was in] 1987 and he’s still on the out-

side. He doesn’t exist. He doesn’t get

backup. No one hangs out with him.

Far as they’re concerned, he’s a bas-

tard child in the department because

he came forward in the way he did. He

saved himself from indictment but ev-

eryone else got indicted.…That’s an ex-

ception. It’s not common at all. It’s a

one time thing.

To be isolated for something, for being

labeled. It happens all the time.…

Nobody wants them around. You’re

afraid to say anything.

…[A]s a police officer, you don’t get

backup…which means that because

you stood on something that you felt

morally right on…that’s a hard pill to

swallow.…[U]nfortunately these same

officers that sometimes you are

snitching on, or you are telling on, or

whatever, are the same officers [who]

are going to be there at a domestic. Or

who are going to be the ones that you’re

going to [see] when you call for help;

they’re going to be listening. And they’re

going to put down their doughnut and

come to get you. That’s hard. That’s

hard.

Although the discussion suggested a code

of silence influences their behavior, par-

ticipants commented that the amount of

behavior that involves covering up mis-

conduct is very small. Estimates ranged

from 1 to 5 percent. But, as one officer

suggested, “[F]rom that 1 percent, you are

judged on the acts of that one [officer]. It’s

99 percent that are out there doing the right

thing.…Because it’s that same one person

that you will be judged by civvies.”

At the close of the discussion, the partici-

pants criticized the media for creating the

public perception that the code of silence

problem is an everyday occurrence in po-

licing. Because of misrepresentation by the

media, all police officers are perceived by

the public to support each other when in-

cidents of police misconduct occur by not

acknowledging to the proper authorities

that the incident took place:

But that [incident] got blown out of

proportion [by the media].…Is the blue

code of silence, Louima thing, blue

code of silence, and everything

else…stereotyped by the media? What-

ever the media see and whatever they

print, people perceive that to be true,

no matter how much it is [and] no

matter how minute it is.…But that’s

how people perceive things. And

everybody gets stereotyped.

The media take that one bad experi-

ence that he had and make it every-

one.

All it takes is one incident. One nega-

tive. And then the media come in and

“…[Y]ou are

judged on the

acts of that

one [officer].

…[N]inety-nine

percent…

are out there

doing the

right thing.…”

Police Foundation

31

they blow it into that’s what goes on

every day, all day. It’s like that incident

in New York.

The public’s perception of the existence

of a code of silence poses problems for

the police profession, even if the

perception is exaggerated. As the participants

suggested, the community will not perceive

their police as professional if the code of

silence or if police misconduct in general is

condoned.

SolutionsAgency Procedures for Dealing

with Abuse of Police Authority

We posed a number of questions regard-

ing procedures for handling complaints:

How should investigations of citizen com-

plaints be handled (i.e., internally or by

outside civilian review)? Is civilian review

of police misconduct effective in address-

ing problems of abuse? Do such reviews

affect officers’ behavior?

Interest is growing in the possibility of es-

tablishing independent civilian agencies to

monitor police conduct. A number of U.S.

cities have some form of civilian review

for citizens’ complaints against police.

However, controversy persists about the

best mechanism for handling police mis-

conduct. Police sometimes argue that only

the police can effectively “police” the po-

lice. We asked the participants for their

perceptions of the use of civilian review

boards, as well as whether their own cities

had established civilian boards for review-

ing citizen complaints. Participants re-

sponded as follows:

We are just getting it [civilian review].…

We as police officers and the unions

are adamantly against it. We are very,

very much troubled by it.…I feel bad

for the first one, two, three, four police

officers who are going to be the test

pilots, if you [will]. They are going to

get, I feel, very mistreated. Everybody

does. There are good things, don’t get

me wrong, with a review board.…But

right now we are having a hard time

incorporating.

…civilian review board, we have one;

it doesn’t have any power. It doesn’t

dictate department policy.

We have it. A lot of controversy. Lots

and lots. Officers don’t particularly care.

The general consensus is they don’t par-

ticularly care for civilians judging them

and their actions, because they don’t see

it from—the perception is different.

They [civilians] don’t know the emo-

tional side and everything that we see

and we deal with.

Who is on the bar association? Lawyers

judging lawyers. Who is on the

doctors’ associations? Doctors judging

doctors, doctors policing doctors. We

are a specialty; we go to training; we

deal with other people just like them.

Why are we different?

But in our profession…it’s civilians now

and not police officers and bosses or

mid-management or upper manage-

ment, however you want to call it,

making a decision.

Ours is not a fact-finding board so to

speak. What they do is just an over-

sight committee that basically ensures

that the investigation is thoroughly con-

ducted and that…no indiscretions or

abusive things [are] going on during the

“Who is on

the bar

association?

Lawyers

judging

lawyers. Who

is on the

doctors’

associations?

Doctors

judging

doctors.…

Why are we

different?”

32


investigative process.…But everybody

seems to be pretty happy and content

…in that the police are policing and

the citizens are content with the fact

that they are somewhat representing

them to ensure that the police are, in

fact, policing the police and didn’t

sweep it under the carpet.

I mean historically in [his city] civilian

review boards were not a good idea.

They didn’t work or are not going to

work because basically you’ve got a

bunch of headhunters.…We also

have…[a committee]. Basically, your

peers [assistant chief, captain, lieuten-

ant, sergeant, and a police officer].

And they review the complaint, they

review the evidence, and they

suggest a punishment.

We asked whether they preferred internal

review processes over civilian review

boards and received the following

responses:

I’ll tell you. It should stay the way it’s

been. IAD [internal affairs division]—

whatever you want to call it. I’ll tell you

what: I had no complaint with ours.…

What I need is to take care of our own.

And that’s one place where they were

doing a fine job of it. Our IAD was

doing a good job.

…not only IAD, even when it comes

down to just a simple supervisor’s com-

plaint. [Sometimes] your sergeant has

come out and [is] supposed to be with

the person and [to] stop it right there

before it even gets to IAD.

In general, participants had limited expe-

rience with civilian review, but they pre-

ferred that the responsibility for reviewing

police misconduct be placed in the police

and not with civilian review boards.

Rewarding Good Policing

The topic of rewarding good policing was

never addressed directly, but officers re-

ferred to it at various times. One sugges-

tion was from an officer who recom-

mended “going to people and saying, ‘Hey,

you did a really good job.’ Nobody ever

comes up to me and says that.” Another

officer put it this way:

You’d like to see somebody come from

on top of the hill to say, “Hey, I ap-

plaud this officer.” That’s what I’m say-

ing. And I know [from] being there, it

was difficult for [me] and several offic-

ers that I work with because you’re

looking for someone to say—not so

much they have to give you a little

plaque with your name on it and all

that. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Just [for them] to acknowledge.

In general, the participants felt the need for

the department, particularly among individu-

als in upper management, to recognize the

positive accomplishments of officers and not

to focus entirely on the negative. Typical

comments included the following:

It’s difficult to do because I don’t think

anybody came on this job, number one,

if they are financially independent and,

number two, being praised. For the

most part, it’s a thankless job. There

are a lot of things that go unnoticed. A

lot of people don’t recognize or realize

…it could be balanced out if people

from management to citizens or who-

ever [could] take as much effort and

attention to looking at your deficien-

cies and [could use] that same energy

to look at some of the positive things

“…[P]articipants

…preferred

that the

responsibility

for reviewing

police

misconduct

be placed in

the police

and not with

civilian review

boards.”

Police Foundation

33

you do.…You know, just to tell a guy a

job [is] well done motivates that guy to

get up and pull himself out of bed the

next morning and give…at least that

same effort.

But you get hollered at every other day

for something that you did [that] in their

[police administration] mind is wrong.…

So I think there should be an equal

amount.…If you are going to get at me

about what I do wrong, get at me about

something I did right, too.

…in the last three or four years, I re-

ceived over 40 [commendations] and let-

ters from citizens thanking me.…The

community has been very responsive

in thanking me. My department has

given me two in the same period of

time; my partner and I won an interna-

tional award for problem-oriented

policing.…A year and a half later, I

haven’t received a letter from my de-

partment saying good job. But I’ve re-

ceived letters from all over the nation

saying good job. It’s interesting to me

that we often don’t appreciate those

next to us while we [do] appreciate

someone from across the country.

We don’t get recognized by upper man-

agement. I wouldn ’t say middle

management…your direct supervisor

probably knows what you are doing

because you make him look good as

supervisor.…But for all those attaboys

that you’ve got, all the pats on the back,

I’m saying, once you make a mistake in

judgment—not a severe thing, not a

criminal thing—forget about all those

attaboys you ever got. Nobody will re-

member that.

I find that, for me, I was always asking

that question in my years of commu-

nity policing. But I guess for me I found

the pat on the back by being asked to

come here [as a participant in the focus

group]…To me, that was a lift.

I agree with [comment above], [it’s the]

same thing. That’s why I’m here, be-

cause of my commissioner, and he

thinks very highly of me, which feels

good.

In addition to the need for departments to

provide recognition of positive police be-

havior, the participants feel that recogni-

tion from the community is also an impor-

tant factor. While having a difficult time

with a certain community in embracing the

concept of community policing, one par-

ticipant commented:

…But I guess that one community that I

was speaking of earlier, I think if I got

more thank yous and pats on the back

from them, I would be more motivated

to work with that particular community.

But [in] the other two [communities he

is assigned to], I can do something as

small as [this:] Just one old lady…lives in

the community, and she calls me for

everything. And every time that I do

something for her, she really makes me

feel special.

Awareness of this universal yearning for

approval and recognition can perhaps in-

form the improvement of policing and the

changing structure of police authority in

the age of community policing.

“If you are

going to

get at me

about what

I do wrong,

get at me

about

something

I did right,

too.”

34


ConclusionThe rank-and-file focus group discussions

provided insights into some of the most

difficult and sensitive issues in policing.

Initially, we were concerned that the par-

ticipants might be hesitant to express their

attitudes and thoughts on these issues.

In the end, we were satisfied that the


We thank David Hayeslip, Bill Matthews, Colleen Cosgrove, and Stephen Mastrofski for theiradvice in selecting police departments for the focus group.

discussions were both candid and thought-

ful, thus enabling us to view and under-

stand these issues from the perspectives

of the rank and file, who are challenged

by them on a day-to-day basis. Their

perspectives influenced the further devel-

opment of the survey instrument and

continued to affect our research.

APPENDIX D


OF POLICE SUPERVISORS

OCTOBER 27–28, 1997

Rosann Greenspan

David Weisburd

Edwin E. Hamilton

2

Police Supervisors


Defining Issues of Police Authority .................................................................................. 4

Abuse of Authority and the Role of the Supervisor ......................................................... 8

Handling Citizen Complaints of Abuse of Authority 8

General Supervision Issues 10

Handling Situations of Police Misconduct 13

Supervisors’ Perceptions of the Extent and Nature of Abuses of Authority ................. 17

The Role of the Media 17

The Extent of Abuses of Authority 18

Abuse of Authority and Community Policing................................................................. 20

Community Policing and the Changing Authority of the Police 20

Community Policing and the Potential for Corruption 22

Departmental Structure and Community Policing 24


The Effect of Race and Ethnicity 26

Race and Community Policing 28

The Culture of Policing.................................................................................................... 28

“Us-versus-Them” Mentality 29

Code of Silence 32

Solutions ........................................................................................................................... 35

Agency Procedures for Dealing with Abuse of Police Authority 35

Rewarding Good Policing 37

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 38

Police Foundation

3

D

POLICE SUPERVISORS

Introduction1

We explained the selection criteria that

guided the process for choosing the po-

lice departments for participation in the two

panels of police—one of rank-and-file of-

ficers and one of supervisory-level offic-

ers—in Appendix C, Report on Focus

Group of Rank-and-File Police Officers.

However, the method bears repeating here.

Our goal was to achieve representation

from various types of departments, as char-

acterized by their style of policing, with

attention to size of the community served

and region of the country. We began the

selection process by using our own exper-

tise and by consulting several colleagues

to develop a list of police departments that

are particularly known for either commu-

nity-oriented policing, problem-oriented

policing, or traditional policing. We at-

tempted to ensure that all regions of the

country were represented as well as

departments of varying sizes. On the basis

of the established criteria, we derived a list

of 24 police departments, assigning half

to the rank-and-file group, and half to the

supervisory-level group. As a result, 11

departments participated in the rank-and-

file focus group, and 11 departments par-

ticipated in the focus group of supervisory-

level officers.

To guide the participating police departments

in selecting representatives to participate in

the supervisory-level focus group, we pro-

vided the chief executives with a list of sug-

gested criteria. Criteria for selection of su-

pervisory officers were naturally somewhat

different than for the rank-and-file group.

We asked the chief executives to choose an

officer with the rank of sergeant or lieuten-

ant and 3 to 5 years of supervisory experi-

ence. For those departments selected for their

…[For] the

supervisory-

level focus

group,…[w]e

asked…chief

executives to

choose an officer

with the rank

of sergeant

or lieutenant

and 3 to 5 years

of supervisory

experience.

4

Police Supervisors

orientation toward community- and prob-

lem-oriented policing, we asked that the

officer selected be a member of those units.

We asked departments selected for traditional

policing to select officers from specialized

units, such as narcotics or gang units, who

have considerable contact with community

residents. As requested, their assignments

included community- or neighborhood-

policing units, and specialized units includ-

ing narcotics, organized crime, mounted

patrol, street crime, and internal affairs. The

11 officers from all regions of the country

who participated in the supervisory-level

focus group ranged in policing experience

from 10 to 29 years, with an average of about

18 years experience as police officers. With

respect to their experience as supervisors,

they ranged in experience from 2 to 11 years,

with an average of 5 years of supervisory

experience.

The supervisory-level focus group was

moderated by Rhoda Cohen, survey direc-

tor of the project, from Mathematica Policy

Research under contract with the Police

Foundation, with the participation of Dr.

Rosann Greenspan, Research Director, Earl

Hamilton, and Kellie Bryant of the Research

Division of the Police Foundation. The fo-

cus group met for two days, from 9:00 A.M.

to 5:00 P.M., on October 27, 1997, and from

9:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on October 28, 1997.

Following a framework similar to that used

with the rank-and-file group, the modera-

tor led the sergeants and lieutenants in a

discussion of a range of topics with a set

of questions to guide each topic. The broad

categories included defining police author-

ity, supervisors’ perceptions of the extent

and nature of abuse of authority, the effect

of community policing on the abuse of

authority, societal factors that affect police

authority, the culture of policing, and what

can be done to prevent problems of abuse

of authority.

In addition, the supervisory-level officers

pretested the second draft of the instru-

ment to be used in the national survey.

They provided valuable input by review-

ing and reacting to each of the survey items,

and by making general and specific rec-

ommendations. The participants worked

diligently, discussing difficult and personal

issues they face in policing and their bur-

dens and responsibilities as supervisors in

addressing those issues. We are sincerely

grateful for their thoughtful and frank

conversation.

Defining Issues of Police AuthorityWe began the focus group by discussing

how police supervisors view the bound-

aries of the proper use of authority, as well

as by asking participants to discuss what

they consider appropriate and inappropri-

ate conduct in the exercise of police au-

thority. The supervisors immediately turned

to the form of abuse that they perceive as

the most extensive problem in their su-

pervisory work: discourteous behavior by

officers toward citizens. Although some fo-

cused on this abuse as the problem in it-

self (“A lot of what comes through our

department is the language complaints, the

attitude complaints.”), others stressed the

relationship between officer insensitivity

and the escalation of the problem. They

suggested that abuse of a more serious

nature could be prevented if officers main-

tained a polite demeanor from the outset.

One Internal Affairs officer led off the dis-

cussion by stating, “Our Internal Affairs

Division investigates anywhere from eight

[thousand] to ten thousand complaints a

…[S]upervisors

…turned to

the form of

abuse…they

perceive[d]

as the most

extensive…:

discourteous

behavior by

officers toward

citizens.

Police Foundation

5

year. And many of them stem from inci-

dents that really need not occur if people

were more courteous or officers were more

sensitive to people they’re talking to.” She

elaborated that her observation of this prob-

lem was also based on her experience

while working with patrol officers, “Just

looking at some of the complaints…from

what was my experience on a district level

when I did work with patrol officers, many

of the complaints could be avoided simply

by being more courteous and more pleas-

ant, schmoozing.”

Another officer suggested that no connec-

tion necessarily existed between discour-

tesy and brutality: “We don’t have a brutal-

ity problem, but we sure as hell have a

discourtesy problem.”

A key element in courteous behavior rec-

ognized by the officers was taking the time

not only to “schmooze” but also to explain

“what you’re doing and why you’re doing

it.…Most of the time you take the 15 or 20

seconds to explain what you’re doing and

why you have to do it, and you can avert

[or] divert from a lot of problems.”

Despite the general agreement that cour-

tesy was the big problem—the problem that

concerns their departments—one officer

found this emphasis both in the focus group

and in his own department surprising:

I find it very interesting because just

two weeks ago we had one of our su-

pervisors’ meetings. And IA [internal

affairs] was scheduled as one of the

presenters at the meeting. And so you

have about 30 supervisors from the

captain and the sergeant ranks listen-

ing to IA and I suppose, like me, ex-

pecting that there were going to be

some pretty severe topics that IA was

going to focus on. And their complete

focus was trends of police officers,

trends that are specific to what we’re

talking about that were—and I’m not

trying to lessen it—but nothing more

than officers not being personable

enough with the public.

One officer shared a recent incident that

he just investigated as an illustration of the

type of “courtesy complaint” that causes

problems for officers and that influences

the negative impressions citizens have

about the police:

I’ve got a good example.…[A]n officer

went to a house with his sunglasses on

to get some information from a com-

plainant. She asked him to have a seat,

but he wouldn’t sit down. He wouldn’t

take the damn sunglasses off. She’s

pissed off. She says, “He has no con-

cern. Why did I bother to call in the

first place?”

So I chatted with the officer before I

came up here about it, “Well, you know,

I didn ’t think about the sun-

glasses”.…Most of our officers are less

than three years on. And unless that

couch has roaches on it and I’ve got to

scrape them off, you know, I’ll plop

down anywhere most of the time. But

this officer just did not feel comfort-

able sitting in this lady’s house. And it

wasn’t a call that was a—it was a noise

complaint. That’s why she called 911.

And that’s what we see a lot of, that

type, where just the body language is

all bad, what they’re projecting when

they talk to people.

As the discussion continued, a theme

emerged among these experienced officers

A key element

in courteous

behavior…[is]

taking the time

…to explain

‘what you’re

doing and why

you’re doing

it.…’

6

Police Supervisors

that suggested that a source of the discour-

tesy problem was the younger or more in-

experienced police officers in their respec-

tive departments (“Our department is a very

young department…).

As one officer suggested, “We are talking

about officers in the field—officers that it

sounds like most of them, including [his

department] are more inexperienced than

even the younger officers, and that they

may be more responsible for inappropri-

ate language or conduct.”

Another officer noted, “A lot of this is just

inexperienced officers [who] haven’t been

there.… It’s a learning process … and most

of it goes back to training and experience.

You can come out of college with all the

degrees you want, but unless you learn

people, unless you know people, you can

ask for a call, you can fill in the blanks on

the forms, but you really haven’t solved

the problem.”

However, another officer indicated that

perhaps attention should focus on issues

of supervision and training instead of the

fact that the incident involved a young or

inexperienced officer:

[I]f the citizen has made a complaint,

it’s just what we did here at this table.

We’ve only focused on, well, he is a

young officer. We’ve got a good police

department, but they are coming out

with training. And if they come out with

an attitude, the attitude is either pur-

veyed by management or by training.

So it’s either the supervision or the train-

ing [that] makes the officers handle situ-

ations, because no officer wants to go

out there and have a complaint. And

no officer wants to go out there and do

something improper, specifically a

young officer coming off the street.

Police [officers] create attitudes, and we

get cocky and we get arrogant, and we

get authoritative sometimes in situa-

tions. But it’s either allowed by the man-

agement, or it’s taught by the training,

or it’s taught by the senior officers.

Yet another officer suggested that he

doubted that training was the culprit be-

cause training in his department had been

emphasizing communication for the past

10 years, and yet the complaints had

continued to increase:

I find it interesting because, for us any-

way, our academy instruction has

changed dramatically in the last 10 years

where the educational process is spe-

cifically focused on how to better deal

with the public, and [on] what differ-

ent social groups you are dealing with

and what expectations those groups

have. Yet I’m hearing that the trend is

that just not listening well enough, of-

ficers using inappropriate language or

are not taking the time to see another

side of the story or whatever.

The officer concluded, “Maybe the public is

just…less willing to listen to us, to our au-

thority.” This comment was part of a very

interesting discussion of whether the atti-

tude and expectations of the public have

changed, whereby they are less willing to

accept police authority at the same time that

they want more from the police. These

changes, rather than an increase in disre-

spectful police behavior, have raised con-

cern about police conduct. In other words,

perhaps the public has been changing the

definition or boundaries of proper police

behavior. The same officer suggested

“…[I]t’s either

the supervision

or…training

[that] makes

…officers handle

situations.…

[N]o officer

wants to go out

there and have

a complaint.”

Police Foundation

7

earlier: “So I think that it’s changed a little

bit, the public’s perception of how open the

officers should be to their discussions, the

way that they’re talked to [by] the police.

And I think that the expectation from that

end is a little more than it was in the past.”

One officer suggested, “I think they kind

of look for us to be a little bit more com-

passionate to their needs or [to be] able to

give them the answer to their solutions right

then and there.”

Another officer noted, “What I have found

over the 24 years—and it seems to be get-

ting worse, at least in [his city]—is there is

less of a willingness of the [public] to sub-

mit to authority.” This comment met with

general agreement from the participants.

One officer offered his perception of the

negative attitude that the general public has

toward police authority, which results in a

need for greater “verbal skills” on the part

of police officers:

[T]here [are] going to be the one

percenters [who] are going to complain,

no matter what the officer does. But

also now it’s like you’re having to use

more verbal skills to get over the im-

mediate dissension that people have

about police authority. Before,

…whatever a police officer told some-

one was not questioned. People just

reacted and responded out of the re-

specting authority. With the media and

the perception of us becoming more

human and our mistakes being magni-

fied, people don’t accept what a police

officer says as quickly as I think they

used to.

One officer suggested that the problem is

lack of empathy, that officers who come

through the cadet program or who come

from suburban areas “don’t associate with

the area that they work with. They don’t

have the empathy that they should have

with some of these other cultures that they

police.”

Another officer argued, “[The empathetic

officer] has greatly improved over the last

number of years,…but the complaints are

more now.”

Another officer pointed out that standards

of acceptance of police authority vary from

community to community and depend on

how residents in a community view past

relationships with police. Thus, the bound-

aries of acceptable behavior are variable:

I also think that it depends on where

you’re working. What’s acceptable in

one area of your community might not

be acceptable in another. I could tell

two people the same thing in different

ends of this city. And one might take

offense at it, but the other one would

just go ahead and just do it because it’s

the norm. I think they look at who they

used to deal with…the expectations of

the past, police officers, as opposed to

what we’re dealing with now.

Further discussion indicated that the stan-

dards set by the citizens have altered con-

siderably since the Rodney King case and

the increased media attention it brought to

police authority. One supervisor suggested

that the public’s greater expectations are

related to their being better informed about

law enforcement:

[T]he public’s expectations, as well as

their knowledge of law enforcement,

has changed here in the last 20 years.…

Obviously one of the big benchmarks

…[S]tandards

of acceptance

of police

authority

vary from

community

to community

and depend on

how residents

…view past

relationships

with police.

8

Police Supervisors

was Rodney King.…[The case] had na-

tionwide impact. Something else that

goes along with that in just about the

same time period is the development

of the news media to where they are

always out there, and their cameras

are always rolling; they are capturing

all these events. So the public’s knowl-

edge of how we operate in law enforce-

ment has increased and changed.…

I think these are two significant things

that have changed the public’s out-

look of law enforcement and their

expectations of it.

One participant complained that citizens

now expect that they can provoke officers

with impunity and that since Rodney King,

police are expected not to react but to be

“robocop”:

You should be able to walk up to a

policeman and slap him, kick him six

or seven times, and then when he starts

to raise his fists, say, “I give up,” and

the policeman is supposed to say, “Oh,

okay. Could you put your hands be-

hind your back for me?”

In concluding the discussion about defin-

ing the boundaries of abuse of authority

and leading into a discussion about super-

vision, one participant pointed out the

multiple, interactive levels of defining, ex-

ercising, and controlling authority. He sug-

gested that successful encounters depend

on the citizen’s acceptance of the legiti-

macy of the officer’s authority, as well as

on the unseen supervisor’s acceptance of

authority over that officer: “So, it’s a citizen’s

willingness to be policed as well as a

supervisor’s willingness to supervise and

make hard choices and hard decisions.”

Abuse of Authority and the Roleof the SupervisorHandling Citizen Complaints of

Abuse of Authority

Participants’ critiques of the citizen com-

plaint process became a vehicle for entry

into an interesting discussion of the role

of the supervisor. A number of participants

expressed the view that the complaint pro-

cess had changed in significant ways that

have led to an increased number of citi-

zen complaints. Citizens increasingly abuse

their right to complain about an officer’s

misconduct, and the supervisor’s right to

reject complaints as unfounded has been

removed. One officer called it “abuse of

complaints”:

I would just like to add one thing,…

personally. There is also abuse of com-

plaints being taken; that’s a fact. In this

information world we live in, [all people

know] they can sign a complaint. A lot

of complaints are used as leverage for—

I know defense attorneys [who] just tell

their clients right off the bat, you go

down and sign a complaint against that

officer, for assault, whatever—verbal

abuse. And it’s used as leverage in court

for a plea bargain situation. So I think

everything said in here is correct, but

there is also abuse of the system. It’s

just so widely known that you can sign

a complaint against a cop, [that] you

can sue a cop or threaten a cop [when]

you are going to sue,…that it’s abused

in some forms.

Others agreed that citizens abuse the

system as a way to punish the officer:

“…[I]t’s a

citizen’s

willingness

to be policed

as well as a

supervisor’s

willingness to

supervise and

make hard

choices.…”

Police Foundation

9

If a complaint comes in, we’ve got to

document it, and then we’ve got to go

through the investigative steps. [We’ve

got to] interview, we’ve got to call, and

it’s just a bunch of bullshit [in] the major-

ity of the cases. A lot of it is just…

vindictive. They are trying to backdoor

the officer because they [complainant]

got jammed up on something. So they

want to deflect the—what R——was say-

ing. They want to deflect the focus of

what’s going on. And they want to jam

up the cop by making a complaint.

It’s like he said, like R——said; it’s a

ploy to get something for nothing. And

we find it all the time. Most complaints

are not valid.

One participant, acknowledging an in-

crease in complaints, was curious about

whether the other participants were re-

quired as supervisors to take reports of

complaints that they knew would not be

sustained. “So is it the norm now that we

are accepting these complaints, and would

everyone agree that there is nothing wrong

with a supervisor telling someone on the

phone or in person, “I’m sorry ma’am. You

don’t have a complaint.”

Replies indicated agreement that they

should have the discretion to reject com-

plaints, but that their supervisory authority

to handle incidents in such a manner had

virtually been eliminated.

As one noted, “We don’t—the administra-

tion has taken that away from us as mid-

level managers, as frontline supervisors, our

administrations have taken that away from

us. We have orders that if somebody calls in

a complaint, we are going to put it on pa-

per; it’s going to be documented.” That

officer gave an example, by way of con-

trast, of when he was a young patrol officer

and his own supervisor had exercised the

discretion to reject a complaint against him:

I remember when I came on, my ser-

geants—I remember I was working traf-

fic and I went out and I tagged this

woman for speeding and whatever else.

Well, she called in a complaint to my

sergeant. And this woman alleged that

I used certain words…“I’m sorry

ma’am,” he said. He said, “Ma’am, I have

known this officer for a number of

years. I know how he speaks and I

know the terms. He says he does not

use language like that. You have no

complaint. You are lying.” And she hung

up the phone on him, and it was true.

And we don’t have that authority any-

more.

Other participants shared the frustration

that all complaints must be accepted, sug-

gesting it “breaks down morale” and con-

tributes to “just an awful environment”:

He is right.…When people walk in with

a complaint, no matter how minute it

is, we have to take it; it has to be writ-

ten down before we can do anything.…

I’d rather go to bat for that officer who

I know didn’t do it, because it breaks

down morale. Our morale here is very

low. So to have these additional com-

plaints only tears the officers down. On

top of that, if the complaint is so gross,

we call the [officers] right off the street

and take their gun and badge right then

and there. And then we just do the

initial paperwork, and it goes straight

to IAD. Sometimes we are not even able

to get involved until it goes to what we

“…[A]s

frontline

supervisors,

…[w]e have

orders that if

somebody calls

in a complaint,

we are going

to put it on

paper; it’s

going to be

documented.”

10

Police Supervisors

consider a trial board. And if among

the peers, you actually have to go—it’s

like court, and you feel so bad for the

officer because the majority of the time

it’s not true.

General Supervision Issues

The discussion of the complaints process

led to a broader discussion of what some

considered the powerlessness of police

supervisors at all levels:

You know, I’ve got to say 85 [percent]

to probably even 90 percent of the of-

ficers in any organization want to go

out there and do the right thing. They

also want support.…What happens in

[this city] [is] we have a big media board

and we’ve got neighborhood activist

groups. We have what is feel-good com-

munity policing; we have civilian re-

view board, cruiser review board, acci-

dent review boards, discharge, dog

bites. And everybody today, and it’s

probably not just [in his city], but all

over, it’s a contagious attitude. We are

being challenged constantly. Everything

is second-guessed. You are second-

guessed by civilians, supervisors. I

mean, our chief is—there is no such

thing as really a lieutenant or sergeant’s

job. They have taken your power away

from there. City government plays

too much into our administration’s

decision making. It’s just an awful

environment.

But, you know, it starts from the top

down.…They have kind of taken the

sergeant’s rank. It’s a nothing…but it’s

powerless, and lieutenant’s [rank] is

even less power.…Unfortunately, the

rank—what used to be the meat and

potatoes of the organization—was ser-

geants and lieutenants. The sergeants

ran a lot of stuff, and lieutenants [did

too.] You worked at a harmonious re-

lationship and you did your stuff on

the street.…Sure, we have some bad

cops go through the system, absolutely.

Do we have discourteous guys? Yes,

definitely. But, by and large, most of-

ficers want to go out there and do a

good job. We need support from the

chief, and we don’t get it in our city.

We just don’t get it. It’s kind of a joke.

Others disagreed, noting that the supervi-

sor still retains the power to review the

complaint packages: “But the sergeant and

lieutenant do have a lot of power because

you have the power of lieutenant when

you review those packages.”

As the general discussion of the super-

visor ’s role continued, one officer

expressed concern that management is

bound by procedural guidelines that

require it to create “blanket” standards and

policies instead of addressing the problems

individually. This procedure leads to an

inability to target problem officers:

I just—well, we spend too much time

in the police department, I think.…If

you have a problem, instead of zoom-

ing in on people who are committing

the problem—who are the reason for

the problem—we spend too much time

on blanketing everything. Okay, big

sexual harassment policy for every-

body, which you need to have.…But

let’s zoom in on people who are spe-

cifically doing the sexual harassment,

or whatever it is, beating people up,

cursing at people. I know who they

are; you know who they are. Let’s stop

“…[L]et’s zoom

in on people

who are…

beating people

up, cursing

at people.

I know

who they are;

you know

who they are.”

Police Foundation

11

acting stupid and zoom in on them.

Who is abusing sick time? I know who

they are. Again, you know who they

are.

Although he agreed that not addressing the

individual problem leads to unnecessary

blanket policies among other problems,

one participant argued that the fault for

not addressing problems at the individual

level originates with the sergeant who

protects his officers rather than holding

them accountable. He made the sugges-

tive observation, which others corrobo-

rated, that “most supervisors in law

enforcement more often want to be the

buddy rather than to be the supervisor”:

That comes back to police super-

vision.…[I]n a lot of instances, sergeants

know what’s going on, protecting their

employees. The lieutenant knows that

the sergeant is doing the protection and

[that] nobody is responding to the spe-

cific issue. So, therefore, departments

have to come out with blanket policies

instead of accountability. If the sergeant

is not accountable, which is the first-

line supervision [and] supervisor to the

troops [and if] he doesn’t work with the

troops and address training issues, and

address the deficiency that the officer

has, then it all gets convoluted as it goes

through the system.…Then it gets to

Internal Affairs because it becomes a

big problem because we don’t [address

the problem.] Some of my troops, when

they first start working for me, call me

nitpicky because I do. You have to look

at the small issues to keep from having

to look at the big issues. And most su-

pervisors in law enforcement more of-

ten want to be the buddy rather than

to be the supervisor.

This idea was repeated that supervisors are

reluctant to behave as supervisors. One

officer noted that in his department there

seemed to be a breakdown in supervisory

responsibility, which he attributed to the

fact that many of the supervisory-level

personnel were young and too close to

their experience as patrol officers. There-

fore, they were unwilling to serve in a

supervisory capacity:

…So we’ve got a bunch of young cops

coming on, and we’ve got a bunch of

young supervisors who have not been

able to make the break from patrol of-

ficer. Now all of a sudden they are su-

pervising. So I think there has been some-

what of a breakdown in super[vision.]—

I mean, they are still the patrolman’s tail

kind of thing.…I don’t know how many

times I’ve gone up to some of these kids,

and I [will] say, “You are a cop; take

charge of that situation and go.” And so

they—we are behind the learning curve

so much. So, it’s a citizen’s willingness

to be policed as well as supervisors’ will-

ingness to supervise and make hard

choices and hard decisions.

Another officer showed the serious conse-

quences that can result when supervisors

are unwilling to behave in accordance with

their supervisory responsibilities. Describ-

ing a current investigation in her depart-

ment, she suggested that in an apparent

situation of a “very sick,” serious pattern

of abuse including using verbal abuse,

planting drugs, and stealing money, the

supervising sergeants must have been

complicit at least in that they “didn’t do

anything” about the situation:

There—in that situation—this investiga-

tion is not over yet. It has to come to

trial. But we found that there was a

“…[M]ost

supervisors

in law

enforcement

more often

want to be the

buddy rather

than…the

supervisor.”

12

Police Supervisors

pattern of complaints. That is why this

whole investigation was launched: there

was a pattern of having verbal abuse

complaints, planting drugs, stealing

money, all kinds of allegations that took

on a very sick pattern. And when we

went and looked at it and did the joint

operation with the FBI,…it turned out

to be true.

But there were all sorts of things that

had been discussed here that fall into

that [category]. Number one, there has

to be—and it has not surfaced yet—

but there has to be a level of, if not

complicity, responsibility on the part of

the sergeants. These officers were ab-

solutely lawless, and I don’t know how

anyone could not have seen that. And

although people aren’t pointing fingers

and naming names yet, I would imag-

ine that might happen in the future. So

there is a level of responsibility on these

sergeants and lieutenants that no one

accepted. I find it—coming from the

situation and my background [of be-

ing] with the police department,…[for]

20 years—I find it astounding that these

sergeants didn’t do anything.

Another officer suggested that the appar-

ent unwillingness to exercise supervisory

responsibility may be related to the absence

of proper supervisory-level training, as well

as a lack of innate ability to effectively su-

pervise others:

A lot of that, I think, has to do with the

training of the supervisor and

then just the innate ability to be a

supervisor. You can have a street cop

who is excellent at what he does. Then

people assume that he would make a

good supervisor, but he wouldn’t.

People assume that if you pass the test,

if you are a good test-taker or you can

interview well, you are automatically a

supervisor. Our department provided no

training to be a supervisor, and I think

that that is very reflective in what you

are saying; here is your gold badge; go

do it. Then you just flounder around;

there is just, in many cases, no training.

Although he acknowledged the important

role of the supervisor, one participant

pointed out that the role of field training

officers (FTOs) was also a critical compo-

nent in shaping the new recruit because

“that is where he begins learning the

police culture”:

One thing that we haven’t talked about

in officer conduct and authority and

what not, [is the police culture and] I

think that’s where it starts.…You can

have all the training that you want, but

when that new recruit hits the street

and he sits with his FTO for the first

time, that is where he begins learning

the police culture. That is where the

FTO says, “I don’t care what they told

you in rookie school; this is the way it

is, pal. This the way we are going to

do it.” I think it starts with their FTOs.

Nevertheless, these police supervisors em-

phasized the view that the role of the su-

pervisor as a role model and mentor is a

critical factor in setting standards and ex-

pectations regarding appropriate behavior.

As one put it:

We are talking about [a bunch of

factors] here, but one that I keep going

back to, and I think is so vitally impor-

tant, is the supervision. The supervi-

sor, the first-line supervisor, the

“…[W]hen that

new recruit…

sits with his…

[field training

officer] for the

first time, that

is where he

begins learning

the police

culture.”

Police Foundation

13

sergeant, is so critically important in

how he sets the tone, the expectations.

How he says things and supports de-

partment programs or doesn’t support

them [is critical], if not by what he says,

then by body language and tone of

voice—[by] how he sells it or doesn’t

sell it. That sort of thing, I think, is real.

Similarly, another participant commented:

I think the whole thing comes down to

expectations: expectations that the ser-

geant has among his troops, [and]

expectations that the lieutenants have

for the sergeants. I could go with my

department, and I could pick out a

sergeant and his group and another

sergeant and his group, and one group

has better morale, or another group has

more arrests, or that group is doing a

better job for some reason. What is the

reason? Well, this sergeant is there

mentoring, doing the coaching that he

or she needs to do.

Another stated that it is “the individual su-

pervisor [who] is important.…A lot of that,

I think, has to do with the training of the

supervisor and then just the innate ability

to be a supervisor.”

Most agreed that it is the supervisor’s most

important responsibility to show the offic-

ers how to behave by “set[ting] the tone”

and acting as a “role model”:

But if you are an example, a role model,

you basically don’t have to even give

your unit a talking to; we are going to

do it my way. My way is the right way.

Your reputation? The people know. No

matter what job you are working. If you

come into a certain supervisor’s unit,

they’ll know what they can get over.

Cops want to be told what to do. Told

is the wrong word. But they want you,

as a supervisor, to find things for you

to do.

Handling Situations of Police

Misconduct

We asked the supervisory-level officers to

discuss how they handle incidents of po-

lice misconduct by officers under their su-

pervision. In contrast with their earlier com-

plaints of lack of discretion in taking re-

ports of complaints, the participants gen-

erally stressed that supervisors have a great

deal of discretion in determining appro-

priate discipline, which ranges from “coach-

ing and counseling” to formal reprimands

or terminations. One participant described

his department’s system as “broad enough”

to provide him a range of options, depend-

ing on his assessment of the officer’s

intentions and needs:

Our system is set up broad enough that

I can look at the investigation that IA

[has] completed and decide whether it

was a training issue or whether it was

intentional conduct. Then, depending

on what it is, I can decide if it is a writ-

ten warning or something as formal as

a reprimand or termination. There are

mistakes of the heart and mistakes of

the head. If it is an error where he

thought he was doing the right thing,

then he goes back to coaching and

training.

Another officer spoke of the “leeway” and

“latitude” provided by his department’s

“discipline matrix”:

We have a discipline matrix, and part

of that matrix is policy and procedure

inquiries.

“…[T]he

first-line

supervisor,

the sergeant,

is so critically

important in

how he sets

the tone, the

expectations.”

14

Police Supervisors

It may not be a violation, but they didn’t

follow the correct policy and procedure.

That gives supervisors some leeway in

making some decisions on whether this

qualifies for coaching and counseling

or should there be some form of disci-

pline attached to it such as letter of rep-

rimand or days off. So we have some

latitude there.

Another officer explained that his discre-

tion ranged from deciding to do nothing

about an incident to deciding to terminate

officers involved:

It’s very discretionary, and I guess that

is why you aren’t getting a lot of re-

sponse to this. I can only speak for

myself, but I have had to handle mat-

ters that range from where nothing was

done to where officers were terminated.

To be truthful, in some situation…I

stuck my neck out and ignored the

department procedures and policies

and dealt with the officer one-on-one.

It is hard to identify exactly why I did

that, except that I thought it was a

worthwhile officer who did [his or her]

job well and efficiently, and I didn’t

want to see a blemish on [that officer’s]

record.

However, participants were quick to dis-

tinguish incidents involving intentional

criminal activities, where they would not

exercise discretion to impose less than the

maximum discipline. As one officer said,

“If it is something criminal, then you are

on your own; shame on you.” Another put

it this way:

But I also set a very specific football

field. You can make a mistake while

you are doing the job, and I will fight

and cover for you the best that I can. If

you make a mistake because you are

messing off or trying to do what you

aren’t supposed to do, then I will burn

you and I will send you to Satan or

wherever you need to go.

The general sentiment that a clear line ex-

ists between a behavior that can be over-

looked or treated lightly and an intentional

criminal activity that deserves the harshest

response was expressed by one officer in

this way:

I think everybody would agree: we’re

all supervisors. If it’s something from

the heart—mistake of the heart [and]

the intentions were good—fine, every-

body makes mistakes. Nobody walks

on water. It’s something you can work

on, improve or coaching, training,

simple documentation, whatever, one-

on-one over coffee. But if it’s criminal,

shame on you. Bye; we don’t need you;

we don’t want you.

One participant noted that helping out an

officer accused of a serious violation could

get the supervisor in trouble. “And I agree,

if I can fudge a little bit on a minor infrac-

tion and handle it differently, I’m going to

do that if it’s a good hardworking officer.

But I’m not going to cross that line where

I’m violating—getting myself in trouble.”

As the discussion focused on criminal mis-

conduct by police officers, one officer re-

marked that “misconduct is progressive,”

and it is the responsibility of supervisors

to observe and document patterns of

inappropriate officer behavior.

I think that misconduct is progressive,

and a lot of times supervisors, when

it’s in the minor stages, choose not to

…[A] clear

line exists

between…

behavior

that can be

overlooked

or treated

lightly and…

intentional

criminal

activity that

deserves the

harshest

response.…

Police Foundation

15

document in some way, so that a pat-

tern can’t be seen. And the thing is,

too, an officer sometimes is transferred

around to where we pass our discipline

problems to somebody else. Somebody

will say, well, what do you think of this

guy. And you’re thinking, oh, boy; he’s

great; take him. You can’t go wrong

with this guy. But the point…is then

the disciplinary process starts all over.…

That supervisor has to see this progres-

sion, and it gets to the point when they

pass him on. So the officer goes through

a long time without any discipline when

maybe we should be documenting

more.

An officer provided a story of sexist verbal

behavior toward her by a rookie that she

came to regret having laughed off. “Well,

5 years later, he was indicted and fired for

stopping vehicles with young women in

them. He’d run their plate, stop them, find

out they had an active traffic warrant or

something on them. [He’d] get them in the

car with him and say, “We can work this

out. You know, if you want to do some-

thing for me, we’ll let this warrant go.”

However, another argued that it may be

unfair to use an officer’s history of com-

plaints. “ [I ]f you have 15 brutality

complaints, does that mean that there is

some legitimacy to any allegations if you

caught them in a shooting[?] Not necessar-

ily, because officers that work street-crime

units or narcotic units are the ones [who]

get all the complaints.”

Another officer agreed that the number of

complaints an officer receives is related to

the work assignment: “I agree. It depends

[on] where you work. You know if you’re

a community service officer, [with] more

positive contact, you’re apt to get a lot less

complaints. If you’re the street-crime unit

where you’re kicking in doors, chasing

these knuckleheads, and doing what you’ve

got to do, they’re going to come in.”

One participant noted that a problem with

the way supervisors handle problems of

abuse of authority is a lack of consistency

in disciplining officer misconduct:

One problem we have with our [super-

visory] officers is the lack of con-

sistency.…[M]aybe on Charlie’s side it’s,

try to get your ass there next time; I

throw it in the trash. And officers [hear]

that. Well, on Charlie’s side you can get

away with that; on the Adam side you

can’t. And that’s a problem we have in

our department; we’re not applying the

rules fairly to everybody.…I just think

they really do lack consistency in their

routines every day,…no problem, I’ll

cover it; don’t worry about it, I’ll take

it. You can’t do that. And…the biggest

problem we had is everyone needs to

supervise and be fair about it. And I

think it’s a learning process.…I think

you said [that] everybody wants to be

your buddy, wants to be your best

friend. I think we all want to be bud-

dies with our officers, but there’s a bot-

tom line you cross. I’m your supervisor

today, and this is what we’ve got to do.

But how clear is the line that the partici-

pants saw between criminal and noncrimi-

nal or between appropriate and inappro-

priate behavior? The moderator presented

a scenario and asked the participants to

discuss whether the behavior constituted

abuse of authority. A handcuffed suspect

is sitting at an officer’s desk while he fills

out the necessary paperwork. With no

“…[M]isconduct

is progressive,”

and it is the

responsibility

of supervisors

to observe and

document

patterns of

inappropriate

officer

behavior.

16

Police Supervisors

provocation from the officer, the suspect

suddenly spits in the face of the officer. As

a reflex action, the officer pushes the sus-

pect in the face, causing the suspect to fall

over the chair onto the floor.

Responses varied widely. To some extent,

differences could be attributed to depart-

mental policies, but some participants in-

dicated opinions would vary within their

departments. The first reaction was “No,”

this is not an abuse of police authority:

No…I don’t think that—I think that’s

pretty much a normal—not a normal,

if that’s the right word—reaction of an

officer to use your hand to that person’s

face.…I don’t think the officer intended

on that person’s falling over backward

in the chair and busting his head open

or whatever the repercussion. And I

don’t think that that’s an abuse of

authority. I think that that’s a reaction

to a disgusting act by this person who’s

sitting in the chair. If you can cover [the

person’s] mouth and prevent [him or

her] from spitting and the [person from

falling] over in the chair, you’re doing

the same thing, which would be per-

fectly fine.

An officer explained that his department’s

policy would permit the behavior because

“if there’s a handcuffed prisoner…in the

back of your car, and that handcuffed pris-

oner is spitting and kicking, we can use

OC and spray that prisoner in the face,

which is very, very painful. And that’s com-

pletely proper.” Yet he expressed the opin-

ion that many officers in his department

would, nonetheless, not approve: “[T]here

are plenty of people who would say that

this is an abuse or improper reaction to

that situation.”

Another participant was clear, “By my de-

partment standards, it would be abuse—it

would be excessive force.” Yet he felt, “I

think it would be judged with the entire

situation in mind. In other words, an of-

ficer might not suffer a great deal of

discipline.”

Another analyzed the situation similarly,

stating that although “there [are] very few

instances that I know of that justif[y] strik-

ing someone [who is] handcuffed because

you do have complete control of him,…if

it’s retaliatory, it’s abusive. If it’s reflex, it’s

not abusive.”

Another officer felt, “Once they’re cuffed,

that’s the end of the game,” although “you

do have to take some kind of physical

action to handcuff some people.”

Another put it this way: “I mean, 99.99

percent of the time, if a prisoner’s hand-

cuffed, if the officer strikes him, it’s wrong.”

And yet another officer said, “If you’re

handcuffed in my office and you spit on

me, [even if] not handcuffed, I don’t care;

it’s an assault.…I’m not going to continue

to beat you, but I’m going to have to knock

you to the floor as a reaction.”

The discussion concluded with one officer

expressing a consensus that each situation

has to be judged on its own merits and

that officers must be provided the tools to

exercise their discretion well:

The bottom line is each situation—I

mean, we pay these officers to make

decisions, to make split-second

decisions.…[Y]ou read each case. But

each case rises and falls on its own

merits about what a particular officer

did at a given time given the

situation. You can’t come up with a

“…[W]e pay…

officers…

to make

split-second

decisions,…

we’ve got to

give…[them]

the necessary

tools to make…

decisions.”

Police Foundation

17

blanket statement concerning every-

thing because each situation has its own

nuances, has its own differences. And

yes, we’ve got policies and procedures.

But within those policies and proce-

dures, you’ve got to have the discre-

tion. It’s something that we talk about

all the time, officer discretion.…We’ve

got to train; we’ve got to coach; we’ve

got to do all those kinds of things that

give our officers the necessary tools to

make the kinds of decisions.

Supervisors’ Perceptions of theExtent and Nature of Abuses ofAuthorityThe Role of the Media

Even before we raised the question, some

supervisors were expressing concern, even

bitterness, about the role of the media in

misrepresenting the extent of abuses of

police authority: “[A]nother element of

policing that is there and we don’t want it

to be…is the media. If the media stayed

out of a lot of things, we wouldn’t have

the problems that we do because they put

a spin on something that isn’t there.”

As one officer expressed what she felt was

the media’s obvious bias against the

police, “I mean, aren’t we tired of the 1968

convention yet?” She continued, “[T]hey are

absolutely ruthless when it comes to

police officers.”

Another officer put it this way: “We’re

judged on Rodney King, Fuhrman.”

One officer explained his view of how the

media manipulate public opinion to be-

lieve police brutality has occurred when it

has not for the purpose of sensationalism:

The media…take situations that are

perfectly justifiable, perfectly within the

scope and conduct of the officers, and

they turn [the situation] into a negative.

And then they go out into the commu-

nity and they elicit [responses]—they

love these…immediately after the inci-

dent to get the people screaming and

hollering about police brutality. And

that’s what they leave the public with.

An officer suggested that these situations

occur particularly when the police respond

only by saying, “There is a case under in-

vestigation, can’t respond, there’s no

comment.…Well, then they go to the dirt

bag, and the dirt bag’s family, and they

report it as fact.”

Another officer spoke of the inaccuracy of

the reporting,

By and large the media are lower than

slime. I mean they’re absolutely ruth-

less. They don’t care [what] they’ll do,

and they don’t care what facts they

destroy. I’ve been on situations and I’ve

read about it in the newspaper, and I’m

quoted. I mean I look at the situation

that’s described and I wonder if I was

even there, and I’m the one that

handled it.

Another asked, “Where are their ethics and

morals?”

One participant pointed out the reporting

inaccuracy that can occur when only a

final blow inflicted by a police officer is

seen:

We paint the picture that the police

department and the government is

automatically wrong when they go [to]

“…[The media]

are absolutely

ruthless when it

comes to police

officers.”

“We’re judged

on Rodney King,

Fuhrman.”

18

Police Supervisors

the situation. And then of course, some-

body that saw the last swing of the cop

finally hitting the guy, no matter how

bad the cop is beat, their statement is,

Johnny was on top of them just beat-

ing the hell out of him. So that’s what’s

all over the media.

Another said that the media are not held

accountable for the accuracy of their re-

ports. “I wish there was some way we can

hold them accountable, but we can’t. We

all know we can’t. They can do whatever

they want, when they want. And it’s just

unfortunate that they do that type of

stories.”

One officer suggested that police depart-

ments could and should pay more atten-

tion to their relationship with the media:

But the other thing is [that] we don’t

massage the news, the press, and the

media. We don’t want to acknowledge

that it does have the large role that it

does have. And our departments—most

departments—do not use it, and put it

in as family with us like it probably

should be, so that we can control and

manipulate the press, just like the press

controls and manipulates the facts that

they get from us. But nobody really

works at it.

This led to a discussion of the importance

of the role of the chief in counterbalanc-

ing the media’s exaggeration of police bru-

tality. Some felt that their departmental

leadership was not afraid to stand up for

their officers in controversial cases (“Chief

—— came right on the television and said,

‘Hey, they did exactly what I expected

detectives to do.’”). Others indicated that

their chiefs never supported the officers’

behavior before the media. (When one

commander stood up on television for an

officer who shot a pellet gun, it was “ab-

solutely rare, because the chief chewed his

ass later on.”)

At least one officer felt that even though

the media are as ruthless and awful in his

city as the others had depicted, “Our

department…has a great deal of credibil-

ity and respect from the media.” He pointed

out, “The press is also used in a lot of oc-

casions by us, and it brings out some of

the positive things we do. We’re trying to

implement and improve our work, and so

on. So there’s a positive side as well.”

Another officer agreed that the media can

provide the police with good publicity, but

he cautioned:

Well, the good publicity comes and

goes real quickly. You know, you may

have a good day [such as] a commu-

nity day, and the police are interacting

very well, but it’s gone. If that was on

Monday, it’s gone on Tuesday.

You have a bad incident [and] there’s

an allegation of misconduct. It goes on

for months and months, and then a year

later they’ll play tapes…and so forth.

So I think that we have to use the me-

dia as much as we can to show the

good things. But I think that they are

self-serving when it comes to the bad

things, because it’s more sensational;

people want to watch that more often—

just like any other bad sensational thing.

The Extent of Abuses of Authority

Participants agreed that violent acts of

police misconduct were isolated aberra-

tions perpetrated by a very small number

“…[G]ood

publicity

comes and

goes real

quickly.…

[A] bad

incident…

goes on for

months….”

Police Foundation

19

of problem officers, despite the apparent

public perception of much more wide-

spread problems: “I mean, how many law

enforcement people are there across the

United States [among] the FBI and the lo-

cal police and the sheriff’s departments? I

mean, there [are] thousands. We’re judged

on Rodney King, Fuhrman.” But as one

officer stated, “I think yes, it is an aberra-

tion. But…it’s intolerable.”

Another suggested, “Cops are nothing more

than a microcosm of society at large.…It’s

not that there’s a bunch of rogue cops out

there that are brutal and corrupt and crimi-

nals. It’s just—it’s everyday cops going out

and doing their everyday job.” He contin-

ued, “You’ve got your very best, you’ve

got a large group in the middle, and you’ve

got some on the other end of the spec-

trum that are not so good, and maybe even

criminals.…We need to get rid of them.”

Another officer suggested there is little se-

rious misconduct, both because as a “gov-

ernment entity,” police are highly scruti-

nized, and because police officers “have a

conscience.”

[W]e’re a government entity, so we’re

totally an open book. We get more scru-

tiny than the priests [who] molest little

boys. We get more scrutiny than the

mayor [who’s] corrupt. We get more

scrutiny because we are representative

and we do deal with everybody on a

day-to-day basis. But we probably have

less corruption and [fewer] problems in

our society, the police society, than

probably any other organization, any

other group of people.

He went on to suggest that “even the idiot

[who] comes into this job just to have a job

does perceive that we are supposed to do

right,” and that when police are involved

in a criminal incident, they give themselves

up quickly “because most policemen have

a conscience.”

Participants laid blame on the media for

perpetuating the public’s perception that

incidents of police violence are a common

occurrence. “[T]hey perpetuate some of

these theories about police misconduct, and

they would have the public believing this

happens all the time, everywhere, and

everyday, and so on.”

While acknowledging that isolated inci-

dents of police misconduct do occur, par-

ticipants stressed that their departments

work hard to prevent such incidents from

occurring. As one officer put it, “[W]ill we

find more police officers doing the same

kind of thing? Probably, because the money

and the drugs are there, and because of

the temptations. Have we, as an organiza-

tion—are we trying our best to look at all

kinds of ways to stop this from happening

again? Yes, we are.” Later, this officer sug-

gested that departments should work even

harder at preventing these occurrences,

however isolated they are: “But you just

have to look at it and say, ‘Is the whole

system bad?’ No, it isn’t. But let’s take more

seriously any hint that there could be some-

thing wrong going on with it. Let’s really

look at it.” The officer suggested review-

ing all aspects of training and supervision:

“[A]nd you just can’t discount all of those

things: the training, the supervision. All of

those things have to be reexamined any-

time there’s an allegation.”

Another participant commended police

departments’ ability to remove the “bad

apples”: “And I think, by and large, as

organizations, just from what I’ve been

“…[Y]ou…can’t

discount…the

training, the

supervision.…

[T]hose things

have to be

reexamined

anytime there’s

an allegation.”

20

Police Supervisors

listening,…we do a good job of getting rid

of people [who] need to be gotten rid of.

It’s a long, laborious process because we’ve

got labor contracts to deal with and unions

and the whole spectrum. But I think by

and large, we do a pretty good job of po-

licing ourselves when these incidents do

come up.”

Abuse of Authority andCommunity PolicingCommunity Policing and the

Changing Authority of the Police

The officers discussed a variety of issues

related to the expanded role of the police

in community policing and to the chang-

ing and sometimes misunderstood nature

of their authority. One officer had recently

worked for two and a half years in com-

munity policing in a department with a

relatively long (10-year) experience of com-

munity policing. He described how the

department had gone too far in creating

expectations that the police would solve

all the problems when they initially were

trying to convince the community of the

value of the new model of policing:

I tried for years to get the group…to

prioritize their problems. They are crime

problems; we can deal with crime prob-

lems and we will help you deal with

some of the civil problems. The big-

gest problem was the narcotics, the

prostitution, and some of the more se-

vere stuff.

However, they focused, during the en-

tire time that I was there, on the illegal

vendors near the school in that area.

They wanted the police to fix the prob-

lems. And that is a civil problem. You

have Health and Safety in the Health

Department who can handle that, write

citations.

We tried to redirect this group to those

people because that is where the en-

forcement leverage comes from, not

from us. But the point that I am mak-

ing is they were trying to force the

police department to enforce the health

violation laws. When I refused, of

course they complained to council rep-

resentatives, and it [got] into the politi-

cal arena.

We created problems like that years ago

when we started this neighborhood

policing and [when] it was necessary

for us to convince them that the police

were on their side. We did absolutely

everything for them: civil, criminal, job

fairs, cleanups, completely run by the

police department. And it had to be

that way because we wanted the com-

mitment from them and they wanted

to see the commitment from us.

We are just now, after 10 years of do-

ing this, we are just now trying to tran-

sition from that; we can’t do everything

and don’t expect us to do everything.

We are struggling to do our job. It re-

ally impacted their perception of our

authority.

He went on to explain how he felt that the

expectations of community residents

exceeded the limits of the authority of the

police:

Our community meeting was nothing

more than a police meeting. I say that

because the police were up in front and

there were 100 people waiting to

…[T]he

department

had gone too

far in creating

expectations

that the police

would solve all

the problems.

Police Foundation

21

report every problem they had in the

neighborhood to the police. They had

the expectation that we would come

back next week and tell them that the

problem had been fixed. We allowed

[the problem] to go like that for some

time.

We tried to empower these groups, but

there was a whole lot of resistance.

They really did not want to be empow-

ered; they wanted the police to do it

for them. We were not really willing to

tell them that their perception of our

authority was wrong for fear of their

thinking we were bailing out on this

program that we were working on for

years.

Later, he described how dependent resi-

dents can become on “their” neighborhood

policing team and the dangers of such over-

reliance:

I had myself and 10 officers working a

small crime-ridden geographical area as

the neighborhood policing team.…[T]hey

became completely possessive of my

squad. They chose not to call communi-

cations to report crimes. They chose to

hold onto 911-type aggressive, serious

violations until we met the following

week so that they could police bash.

“Hey, someone pointed a gun at me last

Thursday, and I want to report it to you.”

“Did you call the police?”

“Well, no; we want a neighborhood

policing team officer to respond.”

So…there’s some caution…with putting

these teams together and working in

the communities and having them too

available to community groups or to

the residents to suggest that we were

the only ones [who] could address those

problems.

…Now they get a patrol officer [who]

goes to cover or respond to a problem,

and they [have] a complete different

demeanor.…They’re not comfortable

with [the new patrol officer]. They’re

not familiar [with him or her]. He [w]on’t

sit and have coffee with them at meet-

ings.

Another officer discussed how police au-

thority under community policing is un-

like the “adversarial” authority officers are

taught to exercise in their training, with

its emphasis on arrests. In community-

oriented policing, officers must learn

to exercise authority with “the good

community”:

And partly because the police mental-

ity from the day the person’s hired,

going through the academy, with their

field training officer, all through [the

person’s] career, it’s always go out and

make arrests. You know, it’s kind of an

adversarial training thing here that we’re

going to battle with the criminal, which

we [battle daily]. And there is a place

for that [mentality]. But there is not the

comparable training to partnership with

the good community and engage that

community in part of the problem-

solving.

One officer described how the expectations

raised under community policing can en-

tail an “unrealistic” request to revert to

police actions that once may have been

acceptable, but now may exceed the

limits of police authority:

“…[T]here

is not…

comparable

training to

partnership

with the good

community and

engage that

community

in part of

the problem-

solving.”

22

Police Supervisors

…[T]alking about the community…

asking for unrealistic things—25 to 30

years ago, in the downtown area, they

had what they called the Bum Wagon.

And that was a paddy wagon that would

go around and just pick up all the bums

and, depending on how they behaved,

they either went to jail or to skid row

or you took them someplace else and

threw them out. But they weren’t there

when everybody got to work in the

morning, so it looked nice. And these

people were calling for the Bum Wagon

to come back. That’s what they wanted

to do.

However, the community apparently did

move the police to take action on the

homeless problem by developing new ap-

proaches to address a problem that they

had ignored up until the old approach was

rendered unacceptable. They considered

using arrest, but “we didn’t think our pan-

handling ordinance could withstand the

scrutiny of a Supreme Court challenge, and

we have more than enough homeless ad-

vocacy groups out there that would be

willing to challenge us. Plus, it’s a lousy

waste of a police officer’s time.” Instead,

“they came up with some very innovative

ways to deal with this, [such as bringing]

in service agencies that deal with these

individuals. Bring in what’s left of the men-

tal health professionals out there [who] will

actually come.”


Potential for Corruption

Asked whether community policing in-

creases the risk of police corruption or

misconduct, one participant’s immediate

response was, “I think it ’s just the

opposite.…I think the more you’re known

in the community that you work, the less

likely you’re going to get involved in any

kind of corruption or stuff like that. I think

if you’re not known, you’re a stranger,

nobody knows you, [and] you don’t know

anybody, [then] I think you’d be more

vulnerable.”

Similar points of view—that community

policing decreases the likelihood of

abuse—were expressed by other partici-

pants without dissent. One suggested there

would be a decrease in both abuse and

complaints of abuse because police would

be less likely to abuse people they know,

and because citizens would be less likely

to accuse officers they know of abuse when

they use force:

I think that knowing someone person-

ally [causes] a lot less police miscon-

duct because it would be hard to abuse

someone you know or [who] knows

you as you are. I think when some-

thing is maybe construed as abuse, [for

instance,] you have an arrest where you

have to use force, [then] the people

[who] know you [and] would observe

[you] in the neighborhood where you

work would be more supportive of

your using that force because they

know how you are.

Another participant suggested that com-

munity-policing officers “take a great deal

of pride in their relationship with their com-

munity or their area, and they value that

pride for the most part. They’ve bought

into that neighborhood and they don’t want

to tarnish [their reputation].…So I think

many of their intentions are so honorable

that, again, corruption is not a factor.”

“…[T]he more

you’re known

in the

community…,

the less likely

you’re going to

get involved in

any kind of

corruption.…”

Police Foundation

23

Another officer pointed out that instances

of serious allegations of abuse received at

Internal Affairs are rarely, if ever, directed

against beat officers:

…[T]he allegations of serious corrup-

tion or serious criminal misconduct are

not made against those officers who are

walking around, walking beats, or

[working] in the neighborhood going

to the beat meetings. You don’t hear

complaints about those officers. You

don’t see those allegations of mis-

conduct.

…The profiles of the officers that these

kinds of serious accusations are made

against are plainclothes [or are] doing

tactical or narcotics investigation. Those

are relatively young; they have a lot of

freedom. I understand the need for that

in those kinds of investigations, but I

think that’s where those kinds of accu-

sations are headed toward—not to the

person sitting at the community meet-

ing. I don’t hear those allegations.

One officer suggested that although com-

munity policing is “a very positive thing,” its

presence creates problems by contrast for

traditional patrol units. “The problem we’re

dealing with sometimes with patrol units is

that when we have to go into an area, [we]

know [we]’re met with a contentious atti-

tude because…we don’t know these people.

I don’t deal with them all the time, so when

I have to arrest Joe Blow’s kid and Johnny

Jones’s daughter.… ”

In reply, another participant pointed out,

“We get to know people and we get to

know their first names, and we get to know

something of the family history, but it’s

strictly on a professional level.”

A participant gave an excellent explana-

tion of why he believed community polic-

ing is not “just a throwback to the old beat

officer” and will not “lead us into the cor-

ruption we saw back then.” The difference

is the “changes in morality and ethics in

law enforcement from back 40, 50 years

ago” and after “things like Rodney King”:

Well, I think this theory of increased

corruption or potential for corruption

in relation to the community, a police-

man comes along with the thought that

many people say that, well, commu-

nity-oriented policing is just a throw-

back to the old beat officer…on the

street in New York City. He knew ev-

erybody on that street, where they lived

and every shop owner and so on. And

there was, in fact, corruption very fre-

quently. But I think we’re in a different

day and age, and I’m not so sure we’re

going to get the community-oriented

policing to lead us into the corruption

that we saw back then. The reason…

is we’ve had things like Rodney King,

and what’s happened in Chicago, and

what happened there, and what’s de-

scribed as happening in many cities. I

think there is a different emphasis on

morality and ethics in law enforcement

than we saw back 40, 50 years ago. I

don’t think even the public has a toler-

ance for the corruption that was a fact

of daily life in New York 50 years ago.

So I’m not so sure there is this greater

risk to it as some people seem to think.

I do believe that as time goes on and as

community-oriented policing moves for-

ward, there will be some instances of it

and people will right away say, “Aha,

that was what I was talking about.”

“…[T]here is

a different

emphasis on

morality and

ethics in law

enforcement

than we saw…

40, 50 years

ago.”

24

Police Supervisors

But I think we’re in a different day and

age, and I don’t think it’s as great a

risk.

Another officer explained that he thought

community-policing officers are less likely

to become involved in corruption because

they are under observation and feel the

need to be “representative of what people

think a policeman should be”:

…[W]hen you look at police corruption,

most times it’s under unsupervised,

uncontrolled situations to where either

they’ve been in a narcotics assignment

for a long time, or they’ve been in some

type of special situation where they

have no supervision or they have very

lax supervision. They work either with

just one partner or alone in situations

where you have the interaction with the

community.

[Under community policing], [t]he com-

munity is going to hold you to a higher

standard, and the officer is going to feel

[as if] he needs to be [held] to a higher

standard because he’s going to be rep-

resentative of what people think a po-

liceman should be. But I think that if—

as with community policing—you open

up the whole command system, there

[are] more avenues for people to point

out indiscretions of an officer [who is]

working with the community.

Departmental Structure and

Community Policing

There was some discussion of the way su-

pervision should be restructured in the tran-

sition to community policing: “[I]n most

agencies where community-oriented polic-

ing [exists]—there should be a looser

supervision to some extent where the su-

pervisors [should] empower the officers a

great deal more. Give them more and more

latitude in problem-solving and in

developing relationships with the

community.”

Not only the structure but also the content

of the supervisor’s role changes under com-

munity policing. One officer who was

given charge of the community-policing

unit explained how his work has changed.

I went from being a crime fighter, more

or less—not that I’m not a crime fighter

now; it’s still part of our role. But I ba-

sically, for the last 15 months, have

become [a] real help [to] these young

officers [as they] develop a personality

[when] they had the confidence just to

talk [to groups].…I was basically like a

coach there—but I had younger people

who just could not talk to groups or

just didn’t want to be there.

Of particular interest was the concern ex-

pressed by one of the participants that his

department and police departments across

the country did not have a true definition

of what constitutes community-oriented

policing:

I think I can identify some shortcom-

ings. And because of that, I think we’re

unable to say that you’ve got a true com-

munity-oriented policing program. I

think that’s what you find quite a bit

across the country. I don’t think…many

agencies…really have community-ori-

ented policing tacked down solid. I went

to one conference a couple of years

ago.… They started off the conference

saying, “What do you do at your agency

for community-oriented policing?”

“I don’t

think…many

agencies…

really have

community-

oriented

policing

tacked down

solid.”

Police Foundation

25

Somebody says, “Well, we have a horse

patrol. Well, we have a substation or a

community service center.” And they de-

scribed all these features. But none of

those features constituted by themselves

community-oriented policing. And we

still, to some extent, hear that today.…So,

you know, I think we’re not getting com-

munity-oriented policing. We’re not

hitting the nail on the head.

Another officer suggested,

I think in our department…the chief…

tr[ies] to make the department too user

friendly or too just community-polic-

ing concept.…The problem is that we

have—between [sic] the basketball

leagues and the boat rides and the pet-

ting zoo…and about 25 community

service officers,…these [community]

meetings are usually still police-

bashing.…But I think we’re almost too

community oriented.…We’ve got every-

thing for the community.

Another officer replied, “[W]hat I just heard

you describe is a lot of community-rela-

tions programs. I didn’t hear you talk about

community-oriented policing.”

Commenting on the problems that the de-

partment encountered while embracing the

community-oriented policing concept, one

officer was concerned about the “separa-

tion between the officers who are doing

this community policing and what you call

patrol.…And that’s the basic weakness we

have. I mean, community policing is really

supposed to be a philosophy that every-

one’s involved in. And we’re just training

my neighborhood task force guys, and the

patrol guys are kind of being left out of it

completely.”

This officer also had an interesting obser-

vation about the problem of integrating

community policing as it pertains to

officers assigned to the midnight shift:

…[M]idnights in our police department,

and I think [in] a lot of police depart-

ments, is just left out in the cold in re-

gard to any of this, community policing,

whatever it may be. The midnight tour

on our police department is exactly the

same as it was 17 years ago when I came

on. It’s minimal manpower. The desk

man, the house mouse, maybe four cars

per precinct. That’s it. Now they don’t

know community policing from a hole

in their head.

Some of them don’t even know we have

bicycle patrol out there. What the hell

is that? Bike? What the hell [are] you

doing with that? When did that hap-

pen? About 5 years ago. You know, 2

or 3 years ago. And I think that’s where

you run into a lot of corruption prob-

lems or authority problems, ethical

problems.

[Officers in the] midnight tour [are] just

out there on their own. And it’s their

own world. No one gives a shit about

them. No one brings them on board.

And to me, that’s one of [the problems].

I’m always trying to [work on the prob-

lem]—because I’m an old midnight guy

and I know the midnight world.

And I’m always trying to talk to the

bosses that I’m exposed to and say,

“You know [the problems]; you’ve got

to get the midnight guys involved in

something. You’ve got to give them

some kind of training. You know,

“…[C]ommunity

policing

is…supposed

to be a

philosophy

that every-

one’s involved

in…and the

patrol guys

are…being

left out…

completely.”

26

Police Supervisors

they’re out there 8 hours a day them-

selves dealing with the same commu-

nity that we’re dealing with, but they

don’t have any of this philosophy,

or any of this training, or any of the

support.”

Societal Factors That Affect Abuseof AuthorityThe Effect of Race and Ethnicity

The topic of race as a factor in police be-

havior—suspicion, investigation, stops and

searches, use of force—is an important

consideration in any discussion of issues

related to abuse of authority. We began

the discussion by asking the group: Is it

unfair to stereotype, or is it “smart polic-

ing” to know that people of certain types,

seen at certain hours in certain places, are

basically up to no good?

One officer remarked:

If I know [that] at 2 o’clock in the morn-

ing in a residential neighborhood no

12- and 13-year-old should be walking

back and forth business, then to some

something is wrong and it’s not because

they’re two young black kids. It’s be-

cause of where they are in that particu-

lar setting. If I work in an all-black

neighborhood and I have arrested 40

people the last 2 weeks, it’s not because

I only look for black people; it’s be-

cause that’s all that was there.…I can’t

arrest white people, Korean people, Ital-

ian people if there are none.

Furthermore, the officer stressed that for

her the issue of race was irrelevant when

it comes to enforcing the law:

And I say to them all the time, I lock

up people who are doing wrong, re-

gardless of color. If you’re wrong,

you’re locked up. I make no bones

about it. It doesn’t matter. I lock up old

people, unfortunately, grandmas, little

children, everybody gets locked up if

you’re wrong. My criteri[on] is who was

wrong and who was right. Age has no

limit; color has no distinction. Every-

body is locked up.

Responding to this comment, another of-

ficer suggested, “And I think that comes

with experience. You have experience in

a certain area; you know who is who and

what’s going on, who is not supposed to

be there and who is. Then you get that gut

feeling: this guy—I’ll check it out.”

Another officer suggested that officers who

exhibit racist attitudes in the conduct of

their duties eventually “weed themselves

out of this job,” because racism interferes

with doing police work successfully:

In American society today, [if you have]

a racist cop, [and]…in my experience

it’s always proven true,…black cops

[who] were racist and white cops [who]

have been racist in [his depart-

ment]…weed themselves out because

ignorance creates ignorance. They

make their own stupid mistakes that

have cost them their jobs. Everyone of

them [whom] I’ve known in my career

[and who] are black and white [and]

had a problem with race or being preju-

diced or having particular prejudices,

weed themselves out of this job. An

ignorant person and racism and preju-

dice and discriminatory actions [are]

nothing but ignorance. And ignorance

weeds itself out of this job very quickly

because it takes away your other senses

Is it unfair

to stereotype,

or is it “smart

policing[?]”

Police Foundation

27

and the other things that will make you

survive in this line.

Others suggested that the key to prevent-

ing problems associated with “stereotyp-

ing” is for officers to be sensitive to cul-

tural differences and to effectively commu-

nicate their actions to the person they ap-

proach. As one officer said, “So not only

do we have to become cognizant of what’s

going on in their culture, they have to re-

alize what the law is as well, because they

do bring their cultures here and they [will]

do different things than we do that’s wrong

in our society.”

Another emphasized the importance of

explaining your actions:

You have to know how to talk to

people.…When you approach someone,

you have to tell [that person] what you’re

doing and why you ’re doing it.

Approaching people and conducting an

investigation [is] when a lot of problems

occur. You explain to whoever you’re

dealing with, “I just had a robbery by a

black [person and] you fit the descrip-

tion. I’m stopping you.” They respect that.

People who are out there respect that,

and if they don’t, well, too bad. I’ve got

to do my job. But see, if you just don’t

explain the situation, black, white, His-

panic, Oriental, it doesn’t matter. Then

you’re looking for trouble.

This remark led to considerable agreement.

One participant offered, “Yeah, that’s true.

If you take the 20 seconds to explain, you

can divert a lot of problems. People just

want to be informed [of] what’s going on.”

Another added that people want to retain

their dignity:

But even when you make [an] arrest,

you still have to leave them with a cer-

tain amount of dignity, and that’s what

we were getting on young officers

about. [Those officers] were grabbing

them and telling them to lay on the

ground in the rain. [Then the officers]

might have finished what they’re do-

ing, but it’s raining and they still have

[the person] there. We ride by and say

why is that person there? Did you do

it? Yeah. Well, why is he still there? Put

the cuffs on and get him in the car.

They’re still people.

When asked whether the participants felt

that discriminatory police behavior is preva-

lent among officers or whether it is just a

false perception in minority communities

that is influenced by the media, one of-

ficer stated that the media were in large

part responsible for those perceptions:

…[O]n the race issue, I think the police

are still hurting from…the media issue.

You very pointedly see Alabama where

they were letting the dogs out on the

marches and taking the fire hoses on.

And black politicians, as we have tran-

scended into the inner cities of being

African-American or minority popula-

tions in the inner cities, [those] black

politicians have used the police depart-

ment as stepping stones into political

leadership as well, because it’s been an

area that they could attack.

He also suggested that it may serve politi-

cal purposes to accuse police of racism,

but the police do not have time to behave

in a racist manner:

It serves political benefit to keep a

division of the races and to keep the

“When you

approach

someone, you

have to tell

[that person]

what you’re

doing and

why you’re

doing it.”

28

Police Supervisors

diversity in the arguments expounded

because I think most police [officers,

particularly those who are men,] no

matter what he says when he goes

home to be the macho self in each par-

ticular situation, usually handles it in a

professional situation because again, in

most inner-city policing if you went in

and handled one color differently [from]

the next one [according to] race, you’d

be a busy person thinking all day.

Some officers did acknowledge that dis-

crimination is a problem among officers.

As one put it, “Sure. The race card will

never go away. It won’t. It’s always there.

Somebody is going to play it.”

Another admitted, “Let’s face it; prejudice

is still out there.… I have it in my depart-

ment to some degree, but it does happen.”

Race and Community Policing

General agreement existed among the par-

ticipants that community policing had a

positive effect on relationships between the

police and minority community residents.

As one officer suggested:

I think the black, the African-American

community in [his city], [can change] as

the police department becomes more

responsive. Policing has not been re-

sponsive to the black community [both]

in the past and in the minority commu-

nities. We’ve only been [there] because

of the disenfranchised; we’ve only come

in and [taken] people in jail. With com-

munity policing, we’re seeing more

changes in those positions.

Another officer commented, “I think com-

munity policing is, in fact, about commu-

nication; communication has gotten a lot

better. I think that’s a big thing that I see

between the [minority] community and the

police officer.”

One officer, agreeing that community

policing has a positive effect on relations

in minority communities, described a situ-

ation where prejudiced attitudes among

residents can sometimes hamper commu-

nity-policing efforts:

I’ve got a community right now and it

has community police officers assigned

to it. They came to me 2 weeks ago

wanting black officers, not white offic-

ers. I told them there’s nothing to indi-

cate these officers are not doing their

job. It doesn’t matter what their race is.

I surveyed the other people in that com-

munity. It’s a black community and she

was the only one [who] was making

that comment. So it was her own per-

sonal prejudice. But I got called in the

deputy chief’s office about the issue.

He was called also.…Normally, I think

trust has gone up with the community

policing in the black community with

white officers, overall. It’s just this one

neighborhood, and it really caught me

off guard when she hit me with that.

The Culture of PolicingIn seeking to understand how much the

culture of policing contributes to abuse of

authority, we focused on two aspects of

police culture: (a) the “us-versus-them”

mentality, with its premise that police of-

ficers’ constant contact with problematic

citizens leads officers to view all civilians

suspiciously; and (b) the “code of silence,”

in which police officers protect (by not

reporting) their fellow officers in situations

involving inappropriate or abusive police

conduct. We began by asking whether the

“The race card

will never

go away.…

It’s always

there.

Somebody

is going to

play it.”

Police Foundation

29

participants believed there was an

us-versus-them mentality, and what its role

might be in the abuse of authority.

“Us-versus-Them” Mentality

As we began the discussion of whether the

police are perceived by citizens as operat-

ing under an us-versus-them attitude, one

officer stated she could see why some citi-

zens would have that perception: “Well, I

can see where that might come across to

citizens, especially ones [who] don’t have

much contact with the law. When they do

they get a bad, disinterested police [officer],

[that officer is] the only contact they have.…”

However, she pointed out a theme that

dominated this discussion. Community

policing could be effective in changing that

perception of police. “I think the commu-

nity-policing concept is helping to eradi-

cate [the problems] because…there’s more

of a personal relationship there, I think.”

Another participant shared a similar view

that community policing would not only

change the attitudes of citizens, but also

the attitudes of police officers:

When you first come on [the police

force],…you’re out there in that patrol

car, and all you’re dealing with is

assholes. So [officers] get this mind-set

that everybody’s an asshole, and it

drives their view of everybody. And

that’s why I think community policing

is so important, because it does a lot to

break down those attitudes. It lets folks

know—it lets cops know—that there

are good people out there. There are

people out there that support you.

Another officer added:

Well, I think what community policing

does is put those officers in direct con-

tact with—the entire array of citizens.

In other words, not just the crooks that

they’re dealing with day after day and

night after night. But also it puts them

in contact with the good citizens, so it

brings them balance—brings balance in

their perspective of the public.…Good

people [are] out there. Whereas with-

out that we tend to see, by contact, [that]

those we view [are] all jerks.

Part of the reason that community polic-

ing alters the us-versus-them mentality is

that the community, in partnership with the

police, becomes part of the “us.” As one

officer put it, “The communities are point-

ing the finger, saying, ‘That’s him; that’s

him. He’s dealing drugs on the corner; get

him, and get him out of our neighbor-

hood.…’ So it’s a community actually steer-

ing us to them; they want us to do that. So

for that certain element—say that 85 or 90

percent—that’s where we are in a favor-

able light.”

Some participants thought that to some

extent the us-versus-them mentality is more

prevalent among new or inexperienced

police officers:

Only to the extent that I think new

police officers quite often project a su-

perhero attitude or demeanor, which

tends to separate law enforcement from

the public. I agree that we beg accep-

tance and so on, but I think that comes

after—let’s say, somewhere in that first

5- or 7-year period.…An awful lot of

officers…project a superhero image in

their off-duty time, as well as their on-

duty time.

A number of the participants commented

that the us-versus-them mentality is a

“…[C]ommunity

policing…put[s]

…officers in

direct contact

with…not just

…crooks…[b]ut

also…with…

good citizens.

…[I]t brings…

balance in their

perspective

of the public.”

30

Police Supervisors

requirement of their work and, more im-

portant, that attitude is more often directed

toward those individuals who constantly

come to the attention of the police than

toward the general public. Typical

comments included the following:

Yeah, I agree. I mean depending on

what group of society you’re dealing

with. I mean the positive element, no.

We go out there and are projected in a

positive light. But the people I deal with

in a street-crime unit, yeah, it’s almost

like urban warfare. It is us against them.

My job is to get them; their job is to

bail out, and jump over fences.…Yeah,

with that certain drug-dealing element,

the little scum of society, yeah, abso-

lutely. That’s the way I feel. And, by

any means necessary, we go out and

we do our job. I’m not saying kick them

in the face, handcuff, and beat them,

and put their heads in toilets. But we

do our job; we do it with the court’s

law, and the policies and procedures,

and the law and all the parameters that

we have to meet. But, yeah, absolutely

.…But [considering] the people I deal

with a couple nights, three, four nights

a week, it’s brutal.

I agree with everything that’s been said,

but it’s that small population.…But

those people we keep—like M—— was

talking about, you keep arresting the

same people over and over and over.

Well, I think [that for] the majority of

the citizens, I don’t think it’s us and

them.

But, yeah, I agree. There’s a certain

percentage that we deal with all the

time—actually it’s a big percentage.

[For] a beat officer and in street-crime

units, all your contacts for that 8-hour

period, 99 percent of that contact is

negative contact. So how can you take

an individual and give him any other

attitude or any other perception of life,

other than dealing with negative, which

makes him negative in its context.…

He’s either hearing how bad somebody

just ripped them off, or dealing with

the bad guy saying how [someone] just

ripped him off.

The officers engaged in an interesting dis-

cussion of how they cannot shed their

police identities when off duty (“You al-

most live this job”), and how they find it

difficult to maintain contact with friends

who knew them before they became

police officers. It takes concerted effort to

get away from the police culture. Those

factors exacerbate an us-versus-them men-

tality. As one said,

I think there is an us-versus-them [atti-

tude], and “them” could be the bad guys

and the good people out there.…

He had to make an effort, and I made

the same effort, although sometimes I

analyze it and say, “I failed.” I’ve made

an effort to keep all my non-police

friends. But you know what? Because

of the schedule you work and the hours

you work, and as the years go by, I say

to myself, Jesus Christ, I haven’t seen

[those friends] in years.

I go to weddings; it’s usually cop wed-

dings. Again, because of the hours you

work, if I go for a beer, it’s usually with

[a] bunch of cops. It’s something that I

consciously wanted to avoid, but it’s

difficult to avoid because you’re all

“[For] a beat

officer and

in street-

crime units,

…99 percent

of that contact

is negative

contact.”

Police Foundation

31

living in the same environment, the

same schedule. And that creates an

us-versus-them [attitude]—not even

good guy, bad guy. You’re in a culture

that you have to make an effort to get

out of. Actually, it’s a pleasure to be

around people—non-police people—

who don’t bring up policing also.

Another officer stated:

There’s nothing more annoying than

when you go in a place, or a restau-

rant, and they go, “I didn’t do it; he did

it”.…You almost live this job; you

really do. And you try not to have [only

police friends]. [As] both of these gentle-

men said, “I have friends on the out-

side, but [because of] our schedules and

interests, [I] end up going back to that:

I’m always with cops.”

Another officer stated, “Sometimes you

don’t tell people you’re the police.” Once

she made the decision to tell people her

occupation: “Everybody at that point

changed and treated me different, because

I’m with the police. And I am who I am.

Policing is what I do; it’s not who I am.

And I have to make people aware that I’m

still a person.”

Summing up the sentiments expressed by

those officers, one officer noted:

I think we’re all begging for acceptance.

We’re not the ones saying us versus

them. What we’re asking for is to ac-

cept T—— and accept S——, not to

group us as police; they group us as

individuals and human beings. That’s

what I think all police [officers] are ask-

ing. It’s not us against them, as far as

we perceive it. We’re going to deal with

each issue as it comes before us.…But

it’s not—we deal with particular issues,

and [we hope] we deal with people on

an individual basis more than we deal

with them as us versus them.

Another added, “We’re more stereotyped

than some of the ethnic groups and all the

other groups that are out there.…So that’s

part of the us against them. It’s not us, the

good guy against the bad guy—we’re just

regular…we’re blue collar [workers] too.”

To combat problems associated with the

us-versus-them mentality, one officer sug-

gested that officers should be rotated

throughout the different areas of a city:

…[O]ur city is divided in quadrants,

basically four quadrants. You have your

business area, which would be consid-

ered here; then you have your straight

residential area. And for people who

patrol nothing but residential area all

their career, and [who] have never been

outside that particular district, they do

have a separate mind-set. And I’ve al-

ways said, “People should be rotated

through the quadrants of the city, be-

cause if you know only one thing, and

how to deal with one sector of people,

it’s hard to break that habit.” And some

people have been in that same career,

[have never gone] anywhere else. And

if you take them from straight ghettos

and put them in someplace like [an

upper-class neighborhood], it doesn’t

work. You will get complaints.

People think that this person is abso-

lutely out of control, but you take that

officer out of that and put him back

where he is, and he’s the best thing

happening. So [officers] need to be

“You almost

live this job…”

“Policing is

what I do;

it’s not who

I am.”

32

Police Supervisors

rotated around. I always tell people,

after 5 years, try to move somewhere

else, even if it’s to an investigative po-

sition or something. [Officers] need

something else, because, if not, [they]

get in that mold and it’s hard to break.

Agreeing with that comment, another of-

ficer stated, “It makes you a better police

officer, I think. It makes you a better all-

around police officer, but it’s hard to do.”

Code of Silence

The topic of the “code of silence” or “blue

wall of silence” generated controversy as

it had when the topic was discussed in the

rank-and-file focus group. The discussion

began with one of the participants provid-

ing a definition of what she thought is the

code of silence, a code that pertains to rank-

and-file officers, but not to management:

When I think of code of silence, I guess

I don’t look at it so much as from a man-

agement point of view, but I look at the

two scout car partners, and one guy

crosses over the line. And the guy [who]

has to drag him out the house and, he

knows, should not have struck the

citizen.…That [officer’s] responsibility…is

to tell, and sometimes they don’t until

that complaint comes down and you do

that investigation. And that’s where I al-

ways see the code of silence.

Because they feel like, I went in and

snitched. I don’t want to be the one

[who] has to tell it. But then you have

to let [officers who cross the line] be

put in the hot seat, because it’s always

somebody out there who saw what

happened. Whether you know it or not,

somebody, some citizen, somebody

passing by, some other police officer

who might have been on the opposite

side of the street [will come in and give]

you a statement. So you try to give [of-

ficers] that opportunity to come forth,

and when they don’t, you just light

them up. You have no choice, and that

to me is the code of silence.

One participant noted, quite angrily, that

the topic of a code of silence was not

unique to the police profession, “You talk

about the code of silence as if it is some-

thing that is unique to police work. But

what have we all heard since we [were]

first able to talk? Don’t be a tattletale. That

is what society wanted. This isn’t some-

thing that is just specific to police work,

for God’s sake.”

Another agreed, “What disgusts me about

this topic is that law enforcement gets

tagged with this, and it is such a critical

issue from the public’s perspective. Yet,

they don’t see that this is what is going on

with doctors and lawyers.”

However, that officer, as well as the other

participants, agreed that to a certain ex-

tent the code of silence does exist in po-

licing. Eventually it seemed, as in the rank-

and-file group, that it was the term itself

that was most offensive:

In law enforcement, I think it primarily

pertains to the layers of rank. In other

words, code of silence among officers

and then among supervisory person-

nel, and so on, as [one participant]

pointed out. I think there is, I hate to

use the term, this concept in operation,

but I don’t think it is near what the

public and the media portray it as.

There are other elements working

about this, I hate to use the term, code

of silence.

“You talk

about the code

of silence as if

it is something

that is unique

to police

work.”

Police Foundation

33

Another officer suggested that the more

appropriate term would be “[c]overing for

people.” He went on to explain why offic-

ers have to cover for someone who, “as

big a jerk as he may be, might be your

lifesaver”:

Officers tend to cover for each other

because they know that a part of that

shift is a person they don’t like. They

know they don’t like the way their part-

ner operates and the things that they

do, but they don’t know how often they

will have to work with that individual,

and they know that they always have

to count on that individual for backup.

That person, as big a jerk as he may

be, might be your lifesaver. You may

not like him. If it was your choice, you

wouldn’t work with him, but you have

to depend on him.

A case that we had once was a deputy,

who I am glad to say quit.…The day

after he left, all these stories surfaced

from the deputies about his activities

and what he was doing. We were

scratching our heads and asking why

didn’t you tell us last week or 3 months

ago or a year ago. But they wouldn’t

say. I think it is somewhat understand-

able, because even though they didn’t

like him, he was part of their backup.

As the discussion continued, it became ap-

parent that an important distinction existed

between the participants’ perceptions of a

code of silence when violating a minor de-

partmental rule or regulation and the code

of silence when committing a criminal vio-

lation. As one said, “[I]f anyone of us knew

that one of the other ones was in the pro-

cess of committing a felony someplace,

…there would not be a code of silence.”

One participant noted that a supervisor’s

overlooking minor rule violations does not

constitute a code of silence.

I think M—— is making a good point in

differentiating when talking about the

code of silence and criminal conduct, and

what might be perceived as improper

behavior within our rules and regulations

…and whether or not it was investigated

or if that person is disciplined or not.…

That was a supervisor’s decision to do

one thing or another thing that may or

may not be proper. And even if you don’t

turn that person who went to take a nap

into IA [internal affairs], if you didn’t do

that…that is not the code of silence. [It

should be] my choosing to discipline or

not.…It is not even close to a code of

silence.

Another officer commented, “And as a su-

pervisor, whether you are a sergeant or a

lieutenant—and in most organizations, you

have a progressive discipline procedure if

you have a minor violation—you don’t

want to burn the guy on paper. You can

pull him in; you can counsel him and docu-

ment it for your own records.”

One officer observed that officers will

“close ranks” during a criminal investiga-

tion, not just rank-and-file officers, but ser-

geants too. “They won’t impede your

investigation. But they do, to a degree, close

ranks.”

In contrast, with respect to criminal viola-

tions, all of the participants agreed that they

would not “condone blatant criminal

activity.” Short of what they considered

criminal though, the code may apply:

“Criminal things, we don’t condone that.

Once in a while, there is a cop who gets

“…[Officers]

won’t impede

your

investigation.

But they do,

to a degree,

close ranks.”

34

Police Supervisors

pegged with DWI. The guys stop to get a

beer after work and [he] gets stopped and

arrested. Should he lose his job? No. Do

you have a domestic? Sometimes things get

a little hot between you and your spouse;

you make a bad choice and get pinched.

Should you be vilified publicly? No.”

Comments on distinguishing the applica-

tion of a code of silence in criminal and

non-criminal situations included the

following:

[Concerning] the code of silence, there

are very few police officers—and it may

differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction—

but … just from what I know about the

people sitting at this table, I think that

if anyone of us knew that one of the

other ones was in the process of com-

mitting a felony someplace, there would

not be a code of silence. And I really

object to labeling us as having a code

of silence. I think there have been in-

stances in different departments when

three or four officers, who are involved

in a felony, know about something,

[and] maybe two or three officers won’t

say anything. But on a supervisory level

and a management level, I think there

are very few instances when the code

of silence would [become] the pointed

dagger that you are trying to throw here.

I don’t think there is a code of silence

at all when we are talking about crimi-

nal conduct. And if it is, those people

are part of a criminal mind.

I think that the wall of silence, as far as

criminal things, is a thing of the past. I

hear a lot of cops saying they are not

going to lose their house because of

you.

I think this wall of silence, the media

picks it up out of police doing things

wrong. That is not a wall of silence;

that is a criminal conspiracy. You know

you have the buddy boys in New York.

That is all conspiracy stuff. Those are

criminals wearing uniforms.

[O]ne point to keep in mind…is that

you are in a room full of lieutenants

and sergeants here. And we are

honored to perform our job for our

organization. As far as code of silence,

I think that what C—— said, that at the

patrolman level, maybe it is a little dif-

ferent. But there is nobody in this room

who is going to condone blatant crimi-

nal activity.… But when you are talk-

ing about the code of silence, you are

talking about New York and the really

limited things that happen. But every-

body here, we are supervisors and we

are going to represent our organiza-

tions. Even on the patrolman level, if a

cop really screws something up, every

other member of that organization is

giving thumbs up when they pinch him.

We don’t want bad cops representing

us, either.

…But the point is [that] we all want to

do the right thing; most people do in

society. As police officers, [when] we

come to work, we want to do the right

thing. When somebody crosses the line,

we don’t cover it. We are all good people

here. And across the nation, policemen

are, by and large, hardworking people;

we are no different from you.

At the close of the discussion, one partici-

pant related an investigation of criminal

misconduct among a group of officers in

his department, which indicates that rank-

“I don’t think

there is a code

of silence at all

when we are

talking about

criminal

conduct.”

Police Foundation

35

and-file police officers share the supervi-

sors’ attitude against a code of silence to

protect criminal violators:

We had [a] group that was doing the

drugs and different stuff. We had an

undercover FBI investigation going. But

we were constantly getting calls from

other officers to the point that they were

saying, “You sonofabitches ain’t going

to do nothing about it, and I don’t even

know why I bother to tell on them

anymore”.…[However,] we were trying

to get all the ducks in a row to get them

prison time.

SolutionsAgency Procedures for Dealing with

Abuse of Police Authority

We asked a number of questions regard-

ing procedures for handling complaints:

How should investigations of citizen com-

plaints be handled (i.e., internally or by

outside civilian review)? Is civilian review

of police misconduct effective in address-

ing problems of abuse?

As we discussed in the rank-and-file focus

group’s report, a number of U.S. cities have

some form of civilian review for citizen

complaints against the police. However, the

use of civilian agencies to monitor police

conduct is very controversial, with the po-

lice arguing that only the police can effec-

tively “police” the police. We asked the

participants what their perceptions of the

use of civilian review boards were and

whether their own cities had established

the bounds for reviewing citizen com-

plaints. Participants responded as follows:

Internal affairs works. Civilian review

authority, as soon as you mention

civilian review, the knee-jerk reaction

is no way, yatta yatta, they go on and

on. If they only knew, civilian review

authority is nothing more than a tooth-

less tiger. They’re easier on cops than

the departments are themselves.

Bottom line.

[O]ur review authority…[is]…looking to

get a case. They had 9 months without

a specific case.

We found that when we had it, they

were not prepared for the complaints.

We were like 5 years behind. We had

maybe 400,000 complaints with four or

five people on the board.…It was just

overwhelming, so they did away with

it. So we do it in-house at the station,

and if it’s criminal, it goes to IA.

We’re just starting one so our citizen

review is going through a citizen acad-

emy now. They’re not going to review

every complaint, only those of deadly

force issues and more serious issues.

They’re not going to handle the cour-

tesy complaints and the verbal stuff.

Yeah, it’s totally different. The problem

our officers have [is] we have civil ser-

vice protection and that’s all civilian.

So they review—the chief cannot fire

you. He can only suspend up to 90

days. That’s all the power he has. He

can recommend termination. It goes to

civil service board, and they meet and

you have your attorney present and the

board has their attorney. They present

the case to this board. And they’ve been

pretty fair to the police. Police officers

love civil service. They fired one 2 or 3

“…[C]ivilian

review…is…

a toothless

tiger. They’re

easier on

cops than the

departments

…themselves.”

36

Police Supervisors

weeks ago, but still, we trust them for

the most part and we like it. But now

we’ve got this extra. To me, civil ser-

vice is almost like a civilian review. So

now we’ve got something else to go

through. And any police unit we have

[is subject to] the homicide investiga-

tors, internal affairs investigators, SBI,

sometimes the FBI, the DA’s office and

their investigators, and now civil ser-

vice and citizen review. I mean where

does it stop is what we kept wonder-

ing. How much further double-check-

ing, double-checking, double-checking?

So I…wanted to hear how these civil-

ian reviews work. We were petrified of

them to begin with because it came

about a couple of pre-shoots. We had

a couple of them close together and all

of a sudden we need civilian review;

we need civilian review and now we

have one.

We have a civilian review board that is

always empaneled when there’s a

controversial issue. If it’s not contro-

versial, the board doesn’t review it, but

it’s usually issues of deadly force or

excessive force. [Such issues always

make] the headlines.

Our civilian review board has investi-

gative powers and the [members] actu-

ally have subpoena powers. That’s been

an ongoing fight here lately, and it’s in

appeal to the state supreme court that

they actually subpoena our personnel

records.…And this has been in

existence about three and a half years.

To this date, they have yet to find a

substantive case against an officer.

It’s a toothless tiger. I mean they come

back, they exonerate, and then [they]

do not sustain more cases against cops

than our Internal Affairs unit does.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the participants

overwhelmingly preferred internal review

processes (e.g., Internal Affairs) over citi-

zen review, and they believed internal re-

view was most effective in preventing

abuse of authority:

Internal affairs works.

I think internal affairs is more threat-

ening because we’re police officers.

We’ve all been out there, so we know

how to play the game.

…The officers feel [that] if it goes to

IAD, it’s going to be thorough and done

because our IAD comes. It’s just like

Dragnet. They come and they…flip the

badge. They take you and they say IAD

is in the building, pull the files. People

are already petrified.…So it’s an amount

of fear, a mind-set when IAD comes,

but when you say [civilian review],

people say whatever.…

I’d rather deal with internal affairs. I

think the lieutenants assigned to it are

fair, and they clear more cops. I think

they investigate and they’re a lot fairer

and a lot more thorough and more pre-

cise. I would go with them. In our

civilian review board, it’s a group of

folks [who] review little training and

sustain—of course, with the chief in our

internal affairs and our chief can over-

turn and he has the final say. But I’m

not going to leave my crew to some

“…[I]nternal

affairs is more

threatening.…

We’ve all been

out there, so

we know how

to play the

game.”

Police Foundation

37

guy who is the day manager of Little

Caesar’s or the day manager at 7-11 to

say whether I can work again because

he sits on some review board.

I think my people feel just because they

hear the other officers talk they’re a little

bit intimidated by it, but I don’t know

anyone who has got a bad deal from

IA. I think once [officers] get up there

they get a fair shake.

Rewarding Good Policing

The topic of rewarding good policing pro-

duced an interesting array of responses

from the participants. One officer sug-

gested, “Good work is its own reward. How

many people go out and do a good job?”

Another indicated, “We don’t have support

from anybody really. All the satisfactions

that we get are all in our own minds.”

Other comments included the following:

The phone call of saying, “Hey, thanks.”

Oh, just the recognition among your

peers or in front of your peers of a job

well done.

In general, the participants felt that com-

munity policing offered an excellent op-

portunity for providing positive feedback

to and recognition of the accomplishments

of police officers. As one officer suggested,

now the appreciation goes beyond one’s

fellow officers: “And I think community

policing has expanded that circle a bit. And

there’s more community support.”

Another officer related her experience as

a community-policing officer when the

community arranged an awards banquet

for the officers:

…[T]he district I worked in recently was

all residential neighborhoods—like the

worse place. People said when you

come out of the academy, don’t go in

that district. That’s the worse district.

So people really had a fear going in

[such as] “oh, my God! I’m going to be

shot at every day.” It’s a total ghetto.

There’s nowhere to eat.

But once the [officers] got there they

found they learned a lot. The citizens

wanted to kind of build up a more posi-

tive image, so what they did was they

came to a meeting and they told our

commander, “We want to put on an

awards banquet for the officers because

we really appreciate them. We’re going

to get different businesses and other beat

officers and whoever nominates an of-

ficer on the beat. We’ll give the [officers]

a plaque and a big dinner, and they get

to invite a guest of their choice: wife,

spouse, or whatever.

So officers were [saying,] “Okay, let’s

see what’s going to happen.” And they

rented a beautiful hall. It was one of

the hotel’s ballrooms, and they gave out

these wooden plaques and money, and

the officers really didn’t think it was

going to be a big deal. They invited the

mayor and the council members,…I

mean it was just a big thing and for

that moment, just felt [as if] after all I’ve

done in 15 years, [people] really thought

enough of me to go out of their way.

In [another area of the city], the police

department [and] the officers com-

plained they didn’t have a place to

work, so the citizens of the…area gave

…[C]ommunity

policing [offers]

an excellent

opportunity

for providing

positive

feedback to

and recognition

of the

accomplishments

of police

officers.

38

Police Supervisors

them brand-new work-out equipment

[and] built [for] them [an actual] work-

out room. It’s the little perks, the little

thank yous.

Another officer, providing a remarkable

example, described how the community

reacted in a positive manner, demonstrat-

ing their support for the remaining officers

when faced with a police scandal involv-

ing officers in their district:

…[A]fter the…scandal [and] officers

were arrested, that community did a

number of things for the police in that

district. I’m sure that’s the only thing

that kept that district going. That had

to be devastating to have seven of their

people on television being led into the

Federal Corrections Center. What a hor-

rendous morale problem they had. But

their community banded together and

they had an award ceremony. They did

other things for the remaining good

police officers. That means a lot. I don’t

know if that would have happened if

[community policing] hadn’t been in

place.

ConclusionLike the previous groups, the supervisory-

level focus group discussion provided in-

sights into some of the most controversial

and sensitive issues in policing. We were

satisfied that the discussions were both can-

did and thoughtful, enabling us to better

understand such issues from the perspec-

tives of police sergeants and lieutenants, who

not only are challenged by them on a day-

to-day basis, but also have a responsibility

to see that those under their supervision meet

those challenges. Their perspectives were

incorporated in developing the survey and

continue to inform our research in the

study of police authority in the age of

community policing.


THE ABUSE OF POLICE AUTHORITY - Police Foundation

Documents

Transcript of THE ABUSE OF POLICE AUTHORITY - Police Foundation